Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
__________________________________________
:
:
KESHANNA D. STATEN as administrator
:
Of the Estate of Karon Nealy, Jr.
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
:
Scott Semple, Commissioner of the Connecticut
:
Department of Correction in his individual and
:
Official capacities; and Dr. Gerald Valletta;
:
CO Olsen, CO Franco Pannofino, CO Pierce;
:
CO Martinez and John Does #1 - #10
:
all in their individual capacities
:
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
JULY 26, 2018
__________________________________________:
COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
This is a civil rights action filed by Keshanna D. Staten, the administrator of the Estate of
Karon Nealy, Jr., a deceased prisoner, for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging denial and delay in medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. All defendants acted with wanton disregard for Plaintiff’s life, recklessly and
maliciously.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Venue
1. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (pendent claims).

1

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 35

2. Plaintiff Staten brings this action claiming deprivations of rights to be free from the
deliberate indifference and cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America.
3. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants, at all times
relevant to the complaint, are in based in the district and all activities relevant to this complaint
occurred in this District.
Parties
4. Decedent Karon Nealy, Jr. was an inmate at Manson Youth Institute (hereinafter “MYI”),
42 Jarvis Street, Cheshire, Connecticut. MYI is a level 4 high security facility that serves as the
primary location for inmates under the age of 21.
5.

Before serving time at MYI, Decedent Nealy was an inmate at Bridgeport Correctional

Institute (“BDC”).
6. Defendant John Alves, at all times relevant to this complaint, is and was the warden at
MYI. As the warden at MYI, Defendant Alves was in the position to supervise all corrections
officers at MYI. Defendant Alves’ failure to act on information indicating that unconstitutional
acts were occurring makes him liable for deliberate indifference.
7. Defendant Alves, as the supervisor of all corrections officers at MYI, failed to supervise
his subordinates who committed such wrongful acts.
8. Plaintiff Staten can show an affirmative link between Defendant Alves’ inaction and the
injury to the decedent Karon J. Nealy.
9. Defendant Gerald Valletta is a medical doctor who at all relevant times to this action was
employed by the University of Connecticut Medical Center, Correctional Managed Health Care
(“CMHC” or sometimes “UConn/CMHC”). Dr. Valletta is sued in his individual capacity.

2

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 35

10. Defendant Valletta is normally the principal physician at Garner Correctional Institution
in Newtown, Connecticut.
11. Upon information and belief, during the spring and summer of 2015, the times relevant to
this Complaint, MYI lacked a principal physician, and Dr. Valletta acted as a visiting physician
providing primary care to inmates at MYI like Decedent Nealy.
12. CMHC and the Connecticut Department of Correction (hereinafter “DOC”) were parties
to a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) that contained the guidelines and criteria for inmates
to receive healthcare from CMHC.
13. Defendant Corrections Officer (“CO”) Olsen is a corrections officers who at all relevant
times to this action was employed by the DOC at MYI. CO Olsen is sued in his individual
capacity.
14. Defendant CO Franco Pannofino is a corrections officers who at all relevant times to this
action was employed by the DOC at MYI. CO Pannofino is sued in his individual capacity.
15. Defendant CO Martinez is a corrections officers who at all relevant times to this action
was employed by the DOC at MYI. CO Martinez is sued in his individual capacity.
16. . Defendant CO Pierce is a corrections officers who at all relevant times to this action was
employed by the DOC at MYI. CO Pierce is sued in his individual capacity.
17. Defendant John Does #1 - #10 are both corrections officers who at all relevant times to
this action were employed by the Department of Correction at MYI and medical staff who were
employed by CMHC at MYI. They are sued in their individual capacities.
18. Defendant Scott Semple, at all times relevant to this action, was and remains the
commissioner of the DOC. He is sued in both his individual and his official capacity. Defendant
Semple can be properly served at 24 Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109.

3

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 35

19. Plaintiff maintains that the deprivation and violations of the decedent’s constitutional
rights were carried out pursuant to the rules, regulations, customs, policies and practices of
defendant Semple acting under the color of state law, and Defendant Semple knowingly caused
plaintiff to be deprived of his constitutional rights.
20. Defendant Semple was a supervisor of all corrections officers in the DOC, and his failure
to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring makes him liable for
deliberate indifference.
21. Defendant Semple, as the supervisor of all corrections officers in the DOC, failed to
supervise his subordinates who committed such wrongful acts.
22. Plaintiff Staten can show an affirmative link between Defendant Semple’s inaction and
the injury to the Decedent Karon J. Nealy.
23. Defendant Semple failed to defer to the opinions of medical professionals like Dr.
Kathleen Maurer, who told him inmate medical care was insufficient and likely to lead to
irreparable harm to certain incarcerated individuals.
24. Each defendant was acting under color of law at all times relevant to this action.
Personal Jurisdiction
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants in this case as this case arises out
of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, and pendant
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for the state law claims.
General Allegations
26. Upon information and belief Decedent Nealy was housed at the Bridgeport Detention
Center.

4

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 35

27. Upon information and belief, at some point during his incarceration at Bridgeport
Detention Center (hereinafter "BDC"), Decedent Nealy began to complain to medical and
custody staff about chronic and painful headaches.
28. While at BDC, Decedent Nealy's body became extremely fatigued and weakened.
29. Decedent Nealy’s acquaintances among the inmate population, like Terrance Mitchell,
did not know how gravely ill Nealy was, but Mitchell said he just knew by looking at how pale
Nealy’s skin was that something was wrong with Nealy.
30. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy frequently begged medical and custody
staff for medical attention but was denied.
31. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy submitted multiple medical request slips
but was never seen by a physician.
32. Upon information and belief, while at BDC, cellmate Javon Danzy noticed Decedent
Nealy's rapidly deteriorating condition. Danzy and Nealy were old friends from Waterbury.
33. Cellmate Danzy testified that Decedent Nealy complained of headaches, but that the
correctional staff refused to accommodate Decedent Nealy’s requests to go to medical.
34. Cellmate Danzy told the correctional officers in the unit Danzy and Decedent Nealy were
in that if they did not get Nealy medical attention, he would pull the sprinkler system.
Correctional staff responded to Danzy that he should do what he needed to do.
35. Decedent Nealy complained to his cellmate Danzy “Oh, cuz, I feel like I’m going to die.”
Danzy said that corrections’ staff was sitting watching television and laughing, so he pulled the
sprinkler.

5

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 35

36. Cellmate Danzy was ultimately punished for his attempt to get medical attention for
Decedent Nealy. Danzy said “I don’t want to watch him [Nealy] die. I don’t know what’s going
on with him.”
37. Danzy reported seeing Nealy with patches of hair missing from his head, a symptom
typical in lupus.
38. Upon information and belief, in 2015 after his incarceration at BDC, Decedent Nealy was
transferred to MYI.
39. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy was housed in C-Cottage, C wing at MYI.
40. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy was serving a two-year sentence, but only
had to serve nine months of it. He was slated for release in September 2015.
41. Upon information and belief, while at MYI in the later winter and early spring of 2015,
Decedent Nealy began to turn pale and lose his hair. Hair loss is a symptom of lupus.
42. Danzy was not cellmates with Nealy at MYI, but Danzy knew Nealy’s cellmate Calvin
Cooper.
43. Cooper testified that he was cellmates with Nealy for about three months, from March
2015 until June 2015, right before Nealy went into a coma.
44. Cooper testified that Nealy could not do any physical activity because Nealy said his
body hurt. When Nealy did try to do a push-up, Cooper said he could hear Nealy’s bones crack.
45. Cooper testified that he would crack Nealy’s back for him every day, since Nealy’s back
was stiff regularly.
46. At one point, Nealy stopped eating and he got skinny. Cooper knew Nealy to have an
appetite, so Cooper told Nealy to put medical slips in, but Cooper said they only sent Nealy back
to the cell with ibuprofen.

6

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 35

47. Cooper said Nealy told him that Nealy was going to stop going to medical because they
only gave him pills.
48. Nealy ended up getting punished and going into segregation or solitary confinement in
the “box”, and when he returned, Cooper said Nealy was skinnier than ever, and Cooper would
provide Nealy with food.
49. Cooper said Nealy’s hand in handshakes was cold to the touch and his fingernails were
gray or blue. Lack of circulation in the extremities is a common symptom in lupus.
50. Decedent Nealy, prior to his death, got into a minor altercation that landed him in
segregation at MYI.
51. Upon information and belief, Nealy and an another inmate argued during lunch, and upon
information and belief, Nealy’s illness was evident in the fact that he did not respond rapidly and
immediately to an inmate spitting in his lunch tray.
52. Upon information and belief, the segregation cottage at MYI, cottage B, is unsanitary,
and despite the fact that Nealy should have been monitored more carefully, his condition
worsened significantly while he was in solitary confinement.
53. Cooper said Nealy had no appetite for breakfast or lunch, and that Nealy should go to
medical because not being hungry is not normal.
54. After a week of living together, Cooper had to help Nealy onto the top bunk. Cooper used
to call Nealy “old man” because Nealy was physically ailing and his bones would crack when he
stood up and walked.
55. Cooper even told his grandmother about Nealy’s health, and Cooper’s grandmother said
Nealy needed medical help.

7

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 8 of 35

56. Cooper said it was virtually pointless to go to medical because the staff only did cursory
examinations and “They don’t do nothing in jail but give us pills.” Cooper said it was also
pointless to raise the issue of Nealy’s health to passing Lieutenants or Captains, because nine out
of ten times the passing officers would wave the inmate off, and Cooper said you could tell by
their whole demeanor that they did not care, so there is no point in telling them.
57. Cooper personally saw Nealy fill out three medical slips, but Cooper said Nealy only
received ibuprofen. Cooper said Nealy told him he went to medical one day and asked the nurse,
“Why do they keep giving me pills? Nealy told Cooper the nurse said it was going to make him
feel better, but Nealy was feeling pain. Nealy said he told the nurse they should have given him a
full body scan or something to see what was wrong with him, since the pills were not working.
58. Cooper said Nealy stayed in bed most days. Cooper said Nealy complained that every
bone in his body hurt, that he was weak and that he could not eat.
59. Cooper said corrections officers would come by and check the doors every 15 to 30
minutes, and they would see that Nealy was not moving out of his bed.
60. At another time in the month before Nealy went into a coma, the corrections officers
opened the door to let Nealy out to go to medical, but he was too tired to go, and corrections
officers were made aware he was too tired to go to medical.
61. Cooper said that Nealy’s body would shake.
62. Cooper was in the C wing when the prison called a code white and saw Nealy rolled out.
As Nealy passed by, Cooper said he called Nealy’s name and Nealy was passed out and did not
respond. Cooper said he never saw Nealy alive again.
63. The next day, Cooper resumed his job of cleaning the wing, and he said inmates told him
they smelled feces in his cell, and that Nealy was stuck to the bed with bodily fluids.

8

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 9 of 35

64. Malik Flowers was Decedent Nealy’s older brother, and in MYI at the same time as
Nealy prior to Nealy’s death.
65. Flowers said Nealy told him Nealy sent three slips to medical, at least one for the pains in
his back, but that they hadn’t seen Nealy.
66. Flowers said that Nealy would tell him his bones hurt and that it was hard for Nealy to
get out of bed.
67. Flowers stated that others in prison told him Nealy urinated himself in bed, fell out of the
bed and started having a seizure and foaming at the mouth so the corrections officers had to put
him in a wheelchair.
68. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy was eventually provided with a medical
pass for a bottom bunk due to his deteriorating physical condition.
69. Brandon Longo was Decedent Nealy’s cellmate for two days and Longo testified he
never saw Nealy out of his bed when they were rooming together. Longo said he knew there was
something wrong with Nealy as soon as he moved into the cell. Nealy was deformed, and
“skinny as hell. It was terrible,” Longo said.
70. When Nealy went to shake Longo’s hand, Longo said Nealy was shaking.
71. Longo said that he had to read Nealy’s mail to him, because Nealy was so unwell that
Nealy could not read.
72. Longo testified he wrote Nealy’s sick call, and that Nealy complained all the time to
corrections officers as they walked by Nealy would yell “CO I need help. I don’t feel good.”
73. Longo said that the COs did not respond, and that Nealy told Longo he knew he was
dying.

9

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 10 of 35

74. Longo saw Nealy’s blood in the toilet after Nealy vomited. When Longo showed the
corrections officer the blood in the toilet, the corrections officer identified it as mucus. But
Longo was certain it was blood.
75. Upon information and belief, Decedent Nealy was also provided a medical pass for single
cell housing due to his deteriorating physical condition.
76. Longo reported that Corrections Officers treated Nealy as if he was on a hunger strike.
Yet Longo said inmates were on Nealy’s side and constantly tried to get the attention of
corrections officers to bring Nealy to medical.
77. On or about June 27, 2015, Decedent Nealy urinated himself, began foaming at the
mouth and suffered a seizure. This episode necessitated Decedent Nealy being taken to the
infirmary.
78. Longo was in a different cell in the same unit and block and he heard other prisoners
saying “You can’t fuck with him [Nealy] like that.”
79. Upon information and belief, Correctional Officer Martinez struck Decedent Nealy
several times on the head and told Decedent Nealy to "stop faking it" as he transported Decedent
Nealy to the infirmary.
80. On or about June 27, 2015, Decedent Nealy was transported to John Dempsey Hospital
in Farmington, Connecticut.
81. That day, Plaintiff Staten went to MYI to visit her son, but could not do so because she
was told the prison was in a lock down.
82. Prison authorities waited three days to tell Plaintiff Staten that her son Decedent Nealy
had been transferred to John Dempsey Hospital in Farmington.

10

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 11 of 35

83. Plaintiff Staten had to wait more than a week before she could first visit her son at the
hospital.
84. When Plaintiff Staten saw her son, he was awake and alert. He said to her “Ma, I don’t
wanna die.” Plaintiff Staten told her son that he was not going to die. Decedent Nealy, without
speaking, then gave her a look that she had seen in her son before, that said “Ma, you don’t know
what you’re talking about.”
85. A few days later, Plaintiff Staten heard from Decedent Nealy’s doctors that he was
unresponsive. Decedent Nealy’s doctors never told Plaintiff Staten what was wrong with her son.
86. Plaintiff Staten never spoke to her son again.
87. Decedent Nealy died on July 27, 2015. Plaintiff Staten went to the hospital to visit him,
and he was unresponsive. A doctor whose name Plaintiff Staten does not know told her that there
was nothing else that could be done and the machine would have to be unplugged.
88. Plaintiff Staten did not learn of the cause of death until at least 10 months after the
publication of an article in the Hartford Courant on June 15, 2017 which identified the cause of
death as pulmonary aspergillosis.
89. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Staten, through previous counsel, attempted to
obtain Decedent Nealy’s medical record through DOC but was unsuccessful.
90. The medical examiner’s autopsy stated that Nealy died from pulmonary aspergillosis
complicating steroid therapy for treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.
91. Systemic lupus erythematosus, also known as lupus, is a chronic disease that causes
systemic inflammation affecting multiple organs.
92. Plaintiff Staten said that Decedent Nealy had no medical history of lupus prior to entering
MYI.

11

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 12 of 35

93. Lupus affects the immune system so that the immune system misfires and attacks the
patient’s own tissues in a process called autoimmunity or “loss of self-tolerance.”
94. In lupus, as an attack, or flare up, progresses, all branches of the immune system join the
fight, leading to intense and significant inflammation.
95. While lupus can be difficult to detect, a high index of suspicion is important. People with
lupus often have symptoms that are not specific to lupus, including fever, weight loss, fatigue,
blood clots, hair loss, heartburn, stomach pain and poor circulation.
96. Additional symptoms include rashes, mouth sores, arthritis, lung or heart inflammation,
kidney problems, neurological issues (seizures, strokes or psychosis) and abnormal blood tests.
97. Primary care physicians should also be aware of photosensitivity in patients as a sign of
lupus.
98. The standard of care, based on symptoms, is to have a series of blood tests done,
including a blood screening called ANA. A positive ANA screening will lead to additional blood
specific tests seeking antibodies to Anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm, which will lead to a diagnosis of
lupus.
99. The aim of treatment in lupus is to induce remission, and treatment depends on the type
of symptoms and their severity. Common treatments include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDS) to decrease swelling, joint pain, fever and inflammation of the heart and lung
linings.
100.

Other treatments include antimalarial drugs, corticosteroids and immune

suppressants, biologics and combinations of these treatments.
101.

Diagnosis of lupus can take as little as a week, or as long as a decade. But

applying the proper standard of care without delay, lupus is diagnosable and treatable.

12

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 13 of 35

102.

Fungus infection occurs in patients treated with immunosuppressants and steroids,

especially in high doses of steroids. Prevention of fungal infections further depends on judicious
employment of antibiotics, vigorous treatment of wounds and cautious use of steroids.
103.

The clinical characteristics of fungus infection include pulmonary symptoms,

pyrexia and progressive deterioration in the clinical state of the patient. Early diagnosis of the
fungal infection depends on a persistent search for the infecting fungi.
104.

The finding of hyphae (branching filaments of the mycelium of a fungus) in the

sputum of a systemic lupus erythematosus patient with a suggestive clinical picture should lead
to bronchoscopy, bronchoalveolar lavage, and lung biopsy. Proof of diagnosis will come from
the demonstration of hyphae in tissues and isolation of aspergillus from tissue cultures. Longterm therapy with amphotericin B alone or in combination with fluorocytosine or itraconazoled
may help improve survival.
105.

Infection is the major cause of morbidity and mortality in the lupus patients.

106.

Aspergillus spores are ubiquitous in the environment and may become

concentrated in institutional ventilation systems, like hospitals or correctional facilities.
Colonization in normal hosts can lead to conditions like asthma or allergic bronchopulmonary
aspergillosis. Normal people rarely develop invasive disease.
107.

Aspergillosis is a well-known opportunistic infection in immunosuppressed

patients, yet actual infection may be rare. Yet fungal disease often complicates lupus following
the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy. The risk factors for aspergillosis include high grade
disease activity, granulocytopenia, use of steroids and other immunosuppressive treatment and
presence of bacterial infection.
108.

Delayed diagnosis of aspergillosis leads to death.

13

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 14 of 35

109.

The MOA defined the community standard of care as “Healthcare provided to

inmate patients shall be consistent with the generally accepted practice in the State as recognized
by healthcare providers in the same or similar general specialty as typically utilized to treat or
manage a particular health care condition.”
110.

DOC Medical Director Dr. Kathleen Maurer testified in a deposition on May 18,

2018 that the community standard of care is important because it provides a consistent pattern of
care for patients who are within the responsibility of a care provider.
111.

Defendant Semple was made aware and understood that the care being given to

inmates by CMHC doctors and medical staff was substandard.
112.

Dr. Maurer testified that the DOC had an obligation to ensure that the community

standard of care applied to patient care for inmates.
113.

Dr. Maurer further testified that the MOA had an enforcement mechanism

including financial holdbacks but the amount of dollars to hold back to insure compliance was
very small and that furthermore, holdbacks did not seem to be something that could be done
between state agencies.
114.

Dr. Maurer stated under oath that she repeatedly voiced her concern to Defendant

Semple that the inmates were not receiving care that met the community standard of care.
115.

Dr. Maurer testified that she reviewed various cases that would come to her

attention that raised her concerns about the failure of CMHC to meet the community standard of
care.
116.

Delay of care was a repeated concern that came to Dr. Maurer’s attention as she

reviewed medical cases in the DOC.

14

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 15 of 35

117.

Dr. Maurer testified that under the MOA, she had no authority to force CMHC to

take corrective action. Dr. Maurer did not know if DOC had the authority to force CMHC to take
corrective action.
118.

Dr. Maurer testified that there is a long distance between bad health outcomes and

the MOA, but the distance could be travelled.
119.

Dr. Maurer testified that there was essentially no way to hold doctors accountable

for their violations of the standard of care.
120.

At one point in time, the problems with healthcare delivery had become apparent

within DOC leadership, and the Connecticut General Assembly demanded that the DOC issue a
Request for Information (“RFI”) to discover new companies that might contract with DOC. Dr.
Maurer testified that she continued to ask about the RFI, but after one such meeting, and
Defendant Semple responded to her on more than one occasion that “We cannot embarrass our
state’s flagship university.” Dr. Maurer testified that she interpreted Defendant Semple’s
response that she was to trade inmate health care for UConn’s reputation.
121.

Dr. Maurer testified that she had concerns there would be consequences for her if

she embarrassed UConn and the health care delivery system within the DOC.
122.

When a person like Karon Nealy dies while in custody of the DOC, the DOC

performs a security investigation.
123.

CMHC did periodic peer reviews of its medical staff, but Dr. Maurer realized

after time that these peer reviews did not reflect an accurate view of the cases. Dr. Maurer saw
after a number of cases that what a security investigation and her own DOC form would consider
a violation of the standard of care, Dr. Wu’s staff at CMHC when reviewing the same case
would say there were no violations of policy and procedure.

15

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 16 of 35

124.

During post-mortem investigations by the DOC, Decedent Nealy’s medical care

was flagged as being below the standard of care. The DOC flagged numerous concerns regarding
CMHC policy and protocol, and CMHC/UCMC submitted a corrective action plan to DOC
Health Services following Decedent Nealy’s passing.
125.

As of this point, DOC has not made public any of these investigations.

126.

At some point, Dr. Maurer realized that UConn leadership had influence over

DOC management. She was told by Dr. Trestman that there are many standards of care, and she
responded to that by asking for exterior peer reviews.
127.

For two to three years, Dr. Maurer tried to get external peer reviews as a means of

accountability to improve patient care. When that failed, Dr. Maurer asked for $50,000 to
conduct her own external peer reviews. She wanted to take 25 cases and have them reviewed for
$2,000.00 per case.
128.

Commissioner Semple told Dr. Maurer he did not have the money for this review.

So Dr. Maurer began searching for external sources of funds. She found that the National
Institute of Corrections could provide her a $10,000.00 grant to fund the peer reviews.
129.

Dr. Maurer wrote a letter asking for the grant and Commissioner Semple had to

sign it. Commissioner Semple never signed the letter. Dr. Maurer had asked Defendant Semple
multiple times for peer reviews, and he demurred.
130.

Instead, Commissioner Semple commissioned the Attorney General’s office to

perform the peer reviews of 25 of the worst cases of medical malpractice and neglect by CMHC
medical staff in the DOC system.
131.

Tim Bombard, then Dr. Kathleen Maurer’s assistant in the DOC, collected the

information on the 25 cases that Dr. Maurer wanted peer reviewed. After he collected the data

16

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 17 of 35

and stored it on his computer, he discovered that all the files had been deleted. Although the files
were recovered, Dr. Maurer expressed concerns that the deletion may have been an aggressive
act to prevent the peer review.
132.

Defendant Semple hired the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. (CJI) of Hagerstown,

Maryland to review the 25 cases. CJI was retained by the Office of the State Comptroller for
$63,000.00, paid out of the Department of Correction budget.
133.

But by claiming that this was a legal review of cases in litigation, or thought to

lead to litigation, Defendant Semple could hide the results of the peer review under attorneyclient privilege and attorney-client work product doctrine, despite Dr. Maurer’s repeated requests
for a peer review that could help create accountability with CMCH.
134.

Plaintiff Staten has not been able to see the peer reviewed report which describes

the faults in the care her son Decedent Nealy received.
135.

Defendant Semple refuses to waive the attorney-client privilege in this instance

because the effects of public release of this information as to how badly inmates like Decedent
Nealy were treated would embarrass him and many other powerful people in Connecticut.
136.

Upon information and belief, Karon Nealy’s case of neglect and delay in care was

one of these 25 cases that was peer reviewed, meaning that it was one of the 25 worst cases of
medical treatment by CMHC in the DOC system in 2014 and 2015.
137.

Hiding the peer review of Decedent Nealy’s treatment under the attorney-client

privilege prevents Plaintiff Staten from knowing precisely what happened to her son, and from
understanding precisely how bad the medical care her son received was.
138.

Upon information and belief, the CJI report reviewing Decedent Nealy’s case

concluded the care he received was so bad that consequences should attach to the providers.

17

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 18 of 35

139.

The failure to release the CJI peer review of Decedent Nealy’s case has damaged

Plaintiff Staten in multiple ways, including that she does not know the identities of all of the
medical providers who denied or delayed care to her son, Decedent Nealy, so that she cannot
name them all here in this lawsuit.
140.

Defendant Semple intended to hide the peer review report because it contains

information damaging and embarrassing to UConn.
141.

On September 14, 2017, Defendant Semple swore under oath in an affidavit to the

Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission that the purpose of the contract with CJI was
“to provide information to Attorney O’Neill so that he could provide legal advice to me and to
the agency regarding inmate healthcare.” This justified Defendant Semple’s use of the attorneyclient privilege to hide the findings of the CJI report.
142.

Six months later, on February 20, 2018, Defendant Semple testified before the

Connecticut General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee that the money spent on the CJI
report was “To review the files of the 25 cases and to examine if the health care that was
delivered was appropriate and to make recommendations to us as to what we should be
considering in the future to improve our health care delivery system.” Defendant Semple then
claimed that he asserted the attorney-client privilege on the CJI report because there are some
aspects of these files in litigation.
143.

Defendant Semple’s claim of attorney-client privilege in paragraph 140, supra,

contradicts his assertion of attorney-client privilege in paragraph 141, and the two cannot be
reconciled. Defendant Semple cannot say to the General Assembly that the review was a medical
review and at the same time claim it was a report containing legal recommendations.

18

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 19 of 35

144.

Defendant Semple’s attempt to use attorney-client privilege to hide the peer

review of Decedent Nealy’s case violates the public trust.
145.

This cover-up demonstrates that the DOC is using attorney-client privilege to

protect UConn’s reputation, and to place UConn’s reputation over the medical care received by
Decedent Nealy.

Count I - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference Failure to Supervise as to Scott Semple
146.

Paragraphs 1 through 144 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth herein.

147.

In 2014, after serving as warden of the state’s mental health prison, on or about August 29,

2014 Defendant Semple was named deputy commissioner for operations and rehabilitative services in the
DOC. In this role, Defendant Semple oversaw the daily operations of the 15 correctional facilities in
Connecticut.
148.

This experience gave Defendant Semple a wealth of knowledge about the shortcomings of

the health care delivery system in the DOC.
149.

Defendant Semple was first named acting commissioner of the state’s largest agency, the

DOC, in August 2014 by Governor Dannel P. Malloy.
150.

Governor Malloy named Defendant Semple commissioner of the DOC permanently on

January 21, 2015.
151.

Connecticut General Statutes § 18-81 designates the Commissioner of the DOC with

responsibility to oversee all aspects of service to inmates in DOC custody, including healthcare.
152.

To accomplish this aim, the MOA between the DOC and the UCHC for the Provision of

Health Services to Offenders through Correctional Managed Health Care was first created in 1997.

19

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 20 of 35

153.

Defendant Semple knew the DOC lacked sufficient management and informational tools to

manage, monitor and evaluate the performance of UConn/CMHC under the MOA.
154.

Defendant Semple never supervised or instructed anyone on his staff to create and establish

sufficient management and informational tools to manage, monitor and evaluate the performance of
UConn/CMHC under the MOA.
155.

Defendant Semple knew the MOA was not defined in sufficient detail to specify the

services to be provided by UConn/CMHC and the performance standards for assessing UConn/CMHC’s
compliance.
156.

Defendant Semple never supervised or instructed anyone on his staff to define in sufficient

detail the specific services to be provided by UConn/CMHC and Defendant Semple never instructed or
supervised anyone on his staff to draft and establish appropriate performance standards for assessing
UConn/CMHC’s compliance.
157.

Defendant Semple knew that the contractual terms and performance standards in the MOA

were vague and could not establish measurable and verifiable performance standards for compliance.
158.

Defendant Semple never supervised or instructed anyone on his staff to draft, establish and

implement measurable and verifiable performance standards for compliance with the MOA.
159.

Defendant Semple was tasked with attending executive committee and management

committee meetings, but during the times at issue, these meetings were held irregularly, and Defendant
Semple did not attend them regularly.
160.

Defendant Semple never trained or supervised anyone to attend those meetings and

implement proper management structures for the MOA.
161.

Defendant Semple knew that the budget in the MOA was inadequate for managing the

healthcare cost of more than 14,000 inmates.

20

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 21 of 35

162.

Defendant Semple knew that UConn/CMHC, in the case of inmate deaths, was allowed to

evaluate its own performance. Defendant Semple knew that an effective MOA would include an
independent review of death cases.
163.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Semple only initiated an independent review of

death cases at the insistence of Dr. Maurer, and when Defendant Semple did initiate the independent
review of death cases, it was after Decedent Nealy’s death and, as alleged previously, Defendant Semple
purposely hid the results behind the attorney-client privilege to avoid the bad publicity associated with the
DOC failing to provide appropriate care to inmates in its custody.
164.

Defendant Semple knew that DOC had never reviewed many parts of the MOA, and only

assumed that UConn/CMHC was complying with the provisions of the MOA.
165.

Defendant Semple never instructed or trained anyone on his staff to review all aspects of

compliance with the MOA.
166.

Defendant Semple knew that DOC was not managing the UConn/CMHC MOA with

appropriate diligence.
167.

Defendant Semple never instructed or trained anyone on his staff to manage the MOA with

appropriate diligence.
168.

Defendant Semple knew that the absence of measureable performance standards prevented

DOC from assessing UConn/CMHC’s performance, and subjected the DOC to liability for failure to
provide care.
169.

Defendant Semple never instructed or trained anyone on his staff to implement

measureable performance standards into the MOA.
170.

Collectively, all of Defendant Semple’s failures with regards to oversight of the MOA

created a lax atmosphere of noncompliance, and wanton and willful disregard for human life within the

21

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 22 of 35

UConn/CMHC. Defendant Semple needed to have implemented better supervision in the course of
managing and implementing the MOA in order to prevent the needless deaths like that of Decedent Nealy.
171.

Defendant Semple did not want to offend the University of Connecticut and implement

effective monitoring of the MOA. Defendant Semple told Dr. Maurer not to embarrass the state’s flagship
institution, which is the University of Connecticut. Defendant Semple told Dr. Maurer to place the
school’s reputation over that of inmate health care.
172.

Defendant Semple failed to supervise employees under his control who could have and

should have been implementing effective monitoring of the MOA.
173.

The MOA was repeatedly extended by amendments, and on April 10, 2013, the

Department of Correction extended it through June 30, 2015.
174.

Defendant Semple was regularly made aware by Department of Correction personnel,

including Dr. Maurer, that the MOA was unenforceable, poorly written and was a direct cause of inmates
in the care and custody of the DOC receiving subpar medical treatment that was known to endanger
human life.
175.

In 2012, Defendant Semple was part of a committee that helped draft a strategic plan for

UConn/CMHC. This strategic plan noted extensive challenges with the delivery of inmate healthcare.
176.

Nevertheless, the 2015 Strategic Plan for the Department of Correction does not even

mention the word health care. 1
177.

Nevertheless, on June 26, 2015, despite Defendant Semple’s awareness of the

unenforceability of the MOA, and despite his first-hand knowledge of the regular, repeated failures of
UConn/CMHC to provide adequate care to inmates, Defendant Semple instructed deputy commissioner
Cheryl Cepelak to extend the MOA.
1

http://portal.ct.gov/DOC/Common-Elements/CommonElements/Publications
22

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 23 of 35

178.

Decedent Nealy died a month after this extension was executed.

179.

Defendant Semple knew that by signing this extension, he was endangering the lives of

inmates like Decedent Nealy.
180.

Defendant Semple knew that inmates received inadequate care from the medical system he

oversaw, yet Defendant Semple continued to engage UConn/CMHC as the main care provider for inmates
like Decedent Nealy.
181.

Defendant Semple’s failure to supervise employees properly regarding the implementation

of the MOA directly resulted in the death of Karon Nealy.
182.

The numerous violations of the community standard of care that UConn/CMHC subjected

Decedent Nealy to was a direct result of Defendant Semple’s continued failure to oversee and monitor the
MOA properly.
183.

Defendant Semple knew that failure to measure the performance of UConn/CMHC under

the MOA presented inmates with life threatening dangerous conditions, but Defendant Semple did not act.
184.

Defendant Semple’s failure to act with the knowledge that his failure to act placed inmate

in grave danger constituted deliberate indifference.
185.

Decedent Karon Nealy and Plaintiff Keshanna Staten were damaged by Defendant

Semple’s deliberate indifference.
186.

Decedent Karon Nealy is an entirely foreseeable victim of Defendant Semple’s deliberate

indifference and Defendant Semple’s failure to supervise his staff regarding the implementation of the MOA.
187.

Defendant Semple’s policies and practices of allowing an MOA he knew to be ineffective at

helping prisoners in medical distress combined with his failure to appropriately supervise his staff regarding
the MOA created an unreasonable risk of Eighth Amendment injury to Decedent Nealy and Plaintiff Staten.
188.

Defendant Semple was clearly aware that such an unreasonable risk was created and existed.

23

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 24 of 35

189.

Defendant Semple was indifferent to that risk of Eighth Amendment injury to Decedent Nealy.

190.

Plaintiff Staten’s injury – Decedent Nealy’s death – resulted from Defendant Semple’s policy

and practice of failing to supervise employees regarding the implementation and monitoring of the MOA.
191.

This count is asserted against Defendant Semple in his individual capacity only.

192.

Defendant Semple was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a substantial

risk to inmates like Decedent Karon Nealy.
193.

Notwithstanding each Defendant Semple’s conscious awareness of the risk to inmates like

Plaintiff Staten’s Decedent Nealy, he failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the
risk.
194.

Defendant Semple allowed a culture of deliberate indifference to run rampant through all of his

prisons, so that all staff under his supervision ignored serious medical needs of prisoners like Decedent Nealy.
Defendant Semple failed to supervise and manage his staff in a way so that every corrections officer
understood and knew how to respond and prioritize medical health situations like that faced by Decedent
Nealy.
195.

Defendant Semple violated Karon Nealy’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately trained staff, and to
protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the care and treatment
of Decedent Nealy resulting in his death.
196.

In the manner described above, Defendant Semple subjected Plaintiff Staten’s

decedent to deliberate indifference in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the
United States Code.

24

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 25 of 35

WHEREFORE, on Count I of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment against
Defendant Scott Semple and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) punitive damages; (3)
attorneys’ fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference as to Dr. Gerald Valletta
197.

Paragraphs 1 through 196 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
198.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Valletta failed to provide an appropriate

level of medical care to Decedent Nealy.
199.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Valletta failed to examine and

understand what was happening with Decedent Nealy.
200.

Defendant Valletta knew that there were no consequences to him for failure to

provide proper medical care to Decedent Nealy.
201.

Defendant Valletta knew that there was no oversight by CMHC or DOC over his

provision of care to Decedent Nealy, and thus he did not have to do any work on Decedent
Nealy’s case because there would be no consequences for him if the care Decedent Nealy
received was poor.
202.

Defendant Valletta did not utilize an appropriate index of suspicion when

examining Decedent Nealy.
203.

Defendant Valletta was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a

substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.
204.

Notwithstanding Defendant Valletta’s conscious awareness of the risks to Decedent Nealy, he

failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.

25

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 26 of 35

205.

Defendant Valletta violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent Nealy under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately trained
staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the care
and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.
206.

In the manner described above, Defendant Valletta subjected the Plaintiff’s

decedent to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference in violation of rights
secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced
through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
WHEREFORE, on Count II of this Complaint, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendant Valletta and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) punitive damages; (3)
attorneys’ fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Count III – 42 U.S.C. §1983 Deliberate Indifference as to CO Olsen
207.

Paragraphs 1 through 206 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
208.

Like all other sentient human beings in Decedent Nealy’s wing at MYI,

Defendant Olsen knew and could see that Decedent Nealy was unwell.
209.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Olsen heard Decedent Nealy’s

repeated entreaties for medical assistance.
210.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Olsen took no action to provide

medical assistance to Nealy.
211.

Defendant Olsen was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a

substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.

26

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 27 of 35

212.

Defendant Olsen could have and should have acted to secure the provision of

appropriate medical care to Decedent Nealy.
213.

Notwithstanding Defendant Olsen’s conscious awareness of the risks to Decedent Nealy, he

failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.
214.

Defendant Olsen violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent Nealy under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately trained
staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the care
and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.
215.

In the manner described above, Defendant Olsen subjected the plaintiff to cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United
States Code.
WHEREFORE, on Count III of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment
against Defendant Olsen and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) punitive damages; (3)
attorneys’ fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Count IV - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference as to CO Pannofino
216.

Paragraphs 1 through 215 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
217.

Like all other sentient human beings in Decedent Nealy’s wing at MYI,

Defendant Pannofino knew and could see that Decedent Nealy was unwell.
218.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Pannofino heard Decedent Nealy’s

repeated entreaties for medical assistance.

27

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 28 of 35

219.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Pannofino took no action to provide

medical assistance to Nealy.
220.

Defendant Pannofino was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a

substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.
221.

Defendant Pannofino could have and should have acted to secure the provision of

appropriate medical care to Decedent Nealy.
222.

Notwithstanding Defendant Pannofino’s conscious awareness of the risks to Decedent Nealy,

he failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.
223.

Defendant Pannofino violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent Nealy under the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately
trained staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the
care and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.
224.

In the manner described above, Defendant Valletta subjected the plaintiff to

deliberate indifference in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States
Code.
WHEREFORE, on Count IV of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment
against Defendant Pannofino and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) Punitive damages;
(3) attorneys’ fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Count V - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference as to CO Pierce
225.

Paragraphs 1 through 224 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein

28

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 29 of 35

226.

Like all other sentient human beings in Decedent Nealy’s wing at MYI,

Defendant Pierce knew and could see that Decedent Nealy was unwell.
227.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Pierce heard Decedent Nealy’s

repeated entreaties for medical assistance.
228.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Pierce took no action to provide

medical assistance to Nealy.
229.

Defendant Pierce was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a

substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.
230.

Defendant Pierce could have and should have acted to secure the provision of

appropriate medical care to Decedent Nealy.
231.

Notwithstanding Defendant Pierce conscious awareness of the risks to Decedent Nealy, he

failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.
232.

Defendant Pierce violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent Nealy under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately trained
staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the care
and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.
233.

In the manner described above, Defendant Pierce subjected the plaintiff to

deliberate indifference in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States
Code.
WHEREFORE, on Count V of this Complaint, Plaintiff demands judgment against
Defendant Pierce and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) punitive damages; (3) attorneys’
fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable

29

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 30 of 35

Count VI - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference and Cruel and Unusual Punishment as
to CO Martinez
234.

Paragraphs 1 through 233 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
235.

Like all other sentient human beings in Decedent Nealy’s wing at MYI,

Defendant Martinez knew and could see that Decedent Nealy was unwell.
236.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Martinez heard Decedent Nealy’s

repeated entreaties for medical assistance.
237.

Upon information and belief, Defendant CO Martinez took no action to provide

medical assistance to Nealy.
238.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Martinez struck Nealy in the head while

he was unconscious and in a wheelchair.
239.

Defendant Martinez was consciously aware of the fact that he created or allowed a

substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.
240.

Defendant Martinez could have and should have acted to secure the provision of

appropriate medical care to Decedent Nealy.
241.

Notwithstanding Defendant Martinez’s conscious awareness of the risks to Decedent Nealy, he

failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.
242.

Defendant Martinez violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent Nealy under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical care, to adequately trained
staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted standards of care in the care
and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.

30

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 31 of 35

243.

In the manner described above, Defendant Martinez subjected the plaintiff to

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title 42 of the
United States Code.
WHEREFORE, on Count VI of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment
against Defendant Martinez and prays for: (1) compensatory damages; (2) punitive damages; (3)
attorneys’ fees and (4) such other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Count VII - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Deliberate Indifference as to John Does #1 to #10
244.

Paragraphs 1 through 243 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
245.

Upon information and belief, additional defendants John Does # through #10

objectively and subjectively knew that Decedent Nealy had serious health needs.
246.

Upon information and belief, certain Defendant John Does heard Decedent

Nealy’s repeated entreaties for medical assistance.
247.

Upon information and belief, certain Defendant John Does took no action to

provide medical assistance to Nealy.
248.

Certain Defendant John Does knew and understood that Nealy was ill, since they

opened his cell to allow him to go to medical, but saw that he was too ill to even go to medical,
and Defendant John Does still did not insure that Nealy got medical care.
249.

Upon information and belief, a number of the additional defendants John Does #1

though #10 worked in the medical unit at MYI and failed to provide the proper care to Decedent
Nealy.

31

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 32 of 35

250.

Upon information and belief, a number of the additional defendants John Does #1

though #10 worked as Corrections Officers at MYI and failed to provide the proper care to
Decedent Nealy.
251.

All the additional John Doe Defendants were consciously aware of the fact that

they created or allowed a substantial risk to Decedent Nealy.
252.

All the additional John Doe Defendants could have and should have taken action to

secure the provision of appropriate medical care to Decedent Nealy.
253.

Notwithstanding All the additional John Doe Defendants conscious awareness of the risks to

Decedent Nealy, they failed to take necessary and appropriate steps to reduce or eliminate the risk.
254.

All the additional John Doe Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiff Staten and Decedent

Nealy under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to adequate medical
care, to adequately trained staff, and to protection from harm by substantially departing from the accepted
standards of care in the care and treatment of Decedent Nealy’s lupus.
255.

In the manner described above, Defendants John Does #1 through #10 subjected

the plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Section 1983 of Title
42 of the United States Code.

WHEREFORE, on Count VII of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment
against Defendants John Does #1 through #10 and prays for: (1) a tolling of the statute of
limitations on all John Does pled in this this count until they can be properly identified; (2)
compensatory damages; (3) punitive damages; (4) attorneys’ fees and (5) such other relief as the
Court deems fair and equitable.

32

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 33 of 35

Count VIII – Preliminary and Permanent Injunction as to Defendant Scott Semple in his
Official Capacity
256.

Paragraphs 1 through 255 are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth

herein.
257.

Due to Defendant Semple’s attempt to conceal the CJI Report and its information

about Decedent Nealy’s death, Plaintiff Staten has been unable to determine all the identities of
the defendants who were responsible for the death of Decedent Nealy.
258.

Despite Plaintiff Staten’s best attempts, she has been unable to uncover the names

of all the persons responsible for the deliberate indifference which led to the death of her son,
Karon Nealy, because Defendant Semple and others under his command have hidden or
concealed information.
259.

For Plaintiff Staten to win her deliberate indifference claims, she must surmount a

bar of proof that amounts to criminal recklessness. (see Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144
(2d. Cir. 2003)).
260.

As of this point, neither Defendant Semple nor anyone involved in the health care

given to Decedent Nealy have been charged with a crime.
261.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff Staten alleges conduct herein that is the equivalent of

criminal conduct. Defendant Semple, then, by using the attorney-client privilege to shield the CJI
report from public view, is trying to hide the equivalent of criminal conduct behind attorneyclient privilege in order to prevent public disclosure.
262.

Plaintiff Staten has limited information as to the circumstances leading up to her

son’s death. Plaintiff Staten has not been able to obtain any reports from the Department of
Correction about her son’s death.

33

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 34 of 35

263.

Plaintiff Staten’s inability to learn what is in her son’s medical records or in the

CJI reports has irreparably harmed, since at the time of the expiring of the statute of limitations
in this case, she still does not know the names of all the people involved in the death of her son,
through no fault of her own.
264.

Defendant Semple use of the attorney-client privilege to hide a peer review of her

son’s care has damaged Plaintiff Staten and prevents her from obtaining all the names of the
defendants in this case in a timely manner.
265.

Defendant Semple is using the attorney-client privilege to shield the equivalent of

criminal conduct.
266.

Defendant Semple’s harm is less than that which Plaintiff Staten suffers and

continues to face.
267.

Plaintiff Staten’s request for injunctive relief and a release of the CJI Report will

benefit the public interest.
268.

Parallel to this action, Plaintiff Staten has filed a claim for the wrongful death of

her son Decedent Nealy with the Claims Commissioner of the State of Connecticut under
Chapter 53 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
269.

The Claims Commissioner has not ruled on this claim yet, so the State of

Connecticut has agreed to toll the statute of limitations before the Claims Commissioner because
discovery has not been completed in that case, and indeed, the state of Connecticut has not
provided any medical records to date in that case.
WHEREFORE, on Count VIII of this Complaint, Plaintiff Staten demands judgment
against Defendant Scott Semple in his official capacity and prays for: (1) a declaratory ruling
that the CJI Report should not be protected by Attorney-Client privilege and the attorney work

34

 Case 3:18-cv-01251 Document 1 Filed 07/26/18 Page 35 of 35

product doctrine under the crime-fraud exception; (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction
ordering Defendant Semple to release the CJI Report in its entirety; (3) nominal damages; (4)
punitive damages; (5) attorneys’ fees and (6) such other relief as the Court deems fair and
equitable.
Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury of all issues triable by jury.
Dated: July 26, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kenneth J. Krayeske
Kenneth J. Krayeske, Esq.
Kenneth J. Krayeske Law Offices
255 Main Street, Fifth Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 969-4911
FAX: (860) 760-6590
attorney@kenkrayeske.com
Federal Bar # CT28498
/s/ DeVaughn L. Ward
DeVaughn L. Ward
Ward Law LLC
363 Main Street, 4th floor
Hartford, CT 06106
860-869-4086
Fax: 860-471-8406
Email: dward@attyward.com
Federal Bar # CT30321

35