Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1 r-RiiiONER'S CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT (Rev. 05/2015) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Ty < Cr DIVISION Jhtie 2 11 Plaintiff s Name and ID Number Uh rt Place of Confinement CASE NO. RlcS- m (Clerk will assign the number) G V TVO/n eD* v/e Defenda t s Name and Address , , . f&hyav C* Il 0 G >- /-y C #/-£? Q. - tx e . g* 1 2 3 4 * * / , hi A jA, 7m « }-»> « . 'le, < ' 7 ht gA ffftelA Uf i --<2(>1>/ /o 2- - Co h j Tx, 7S%'!rt>c>-flss*<-y,rA* ff'c -TwA,.<-X<> yi?i. Ittlrlf. Defenddnfs Name and Address t DO NOT USE ET AL. INSTRUCTIONS - READ CAREFULLY NOTICE; d our complaint is subject to dismissal unless it co forms to these instructions and this form. 1. To start an action you must file an original and one copy of your complaint with the court. You should keep a c py of the complaint for you own records. 2. Your complaint must be le ibly handwritten, in ink, or typewritten. You, the plaintif must sign and declare under penalty of perjury that the facts are correct. I f you need additional space, DO NOT USE THE REVERSE SIDE OR BACK SIDE OF ANY PAGE. ATTACH AN ADDITIONAL BLANK PAGE AND WRITE ON IT. 3. You must file a separate complaint for each claim you have unless the various claims are all related to the same inc dent or issue or are ail against the same defendant. Rule 18, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Make a short and plain statement of your claim. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedu e. 4. When these forms a e completed, mail the original and one copy to the clerk of the United States district court for the appropriate distr ct of Texas in the division where one or more named defendants are located, or where the incident giving rise to your claim for relief occurred. If you are confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctio al Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), the list labeled as VENUE LIST is posted in your un t law library, f t is a list of the Texas prison units indicating the appropriate district court, the division and an address list of the divisional clerks. 1 Rev. 05/15 ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2 FILING FEE AND IN FORMA PA UPERIS (IFF) 1. In order for your complaint to be filed, it must be accompanied by the statutory filing fee of $350.00 plus an admin strative fee of $50.00 for a total fee of $400.00. 2. 1 f y u do not have the necessary funds to pay the fee in full at this time, you may req est permission to proceed in forma pa peris. Jn this event you must complete the application to p oceed in forma pauperis, setting forth information to establish y ur inability to prepay the fee and costs or give security therefor. You must also include a current six-month history of your inmate trust account. If yo are an inmate in TDCJ-CID, you can acquire the application to proceed in forma pauperis and the certificate of inmate trust account, also known as in forma pauperis data sheet, from the law library at your prison unit. 3. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides ... if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pa peris, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full a ount of a filing fee. 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1 15. Thus, the court is required to assess and, when funds exi t, collect, the entire filing fee or an initial pa tial filing fee and mo thly installments until the entire amount of the filing fee has been paid by the prisone . If you submit the application to proceed in forma pa peris, the court will apply 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and, if appropriate, assess and col leet the entire fi ling fee or an initial par ial filing fee, then mon hly installments from you inmate trust account, until the entire $350.00 statutory f ling fee has been paid. (The $50.00 administrative fee does not apply to cases proceeding in forma pauperis.) 4. If you intend to seek i for a pauperis status, do not send your complaint without an application to proceed in forma pauperis and the certificate of inmate trust account. Complete all essential paperwork before s bmitting it to the court. CHANGE OF DDRESS It is your esponsibility to inform the co rt of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice should be marked NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS5 and shall not include any motion for any other relief Failure to file a NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismis al of your complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. !. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS: A. Have you filed ny other lawsuit in state or federal court relating to you i prisonment? YES l NO B. If your answer to "AM is yes, describe each lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, giving the same information.) m. Approximate date of filing lavvsuity Parties to previous lawsuit: Plaintiffs) Defendant) s) M PM Court: {If federal, name the district; if state, name the county.)_ . Cause number: Mf/f MM- 5. Name of judge to hom case was assigned: 6. Dispos tion: (Was the case dismissed, appealed, still pending?) 7. Approximate date of disposition: M I/P Rev. 05/15 0 Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3 II. ' PL CE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT, t//i; i ~ III. EXHAUSTION OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: \ YES Have you exhausted all steps of the institutional grievance procedure? NO Attach a copy of your final step of the grievance procedure with the response supplied by the institution. ( YV ei/(wOC5i. tts't ff&i PARTIES TO THIS SUIT: 01¥ t> A. Name and address of plaintiff: /C~ A )CtC <3- - ( 3 1 Mi i U ;t~M6( FK ~%>s - - aAiA 'Tf rs t YB. Full name of each defendant, his official position, his place of employment, and his full mailing address, Del endant 1 >. * TDC.\/ ice Daw el Sf j, of flus hf/V Tx, 7 ZlQl-Ser ( h t* dll tfp'hh'e i' f I .h ofl JOC /!®Q. S C P Oh/ fA/cii sMfo/ < tsi- /ha a t c u m V 7 ks, Briefly describe the act(s) or omission( ) of this defendant which you claimed harmed you. ( 6 iU irt ' V i c iv lj j&Q ahy p s > 'hXoKi mplL iwhiiv . urirAl kL M f (l h ?n a t tv h <1 V/ fa< &/1 A g /! <2 / Y r Y aY f O' A ( JO t' 0) cY I $ fU< t i'ivj O A T ) e Ca '€ {'/ l M/Ur Defend t rk boh >oa fie soc. ICt fYlelY K fa %l>b[ A, ftf, T fa o/o y/ 7 '1 L G Ct? ifatt I p tYy}c ffh/ft\efl /i M Ld V', Briefly describe the act(s) or omission(s) of this defendant hich you claimed harmed you. At cfu 'A o /A ?A m A Lc / F$cltf IftA- 3- K c/\ 6>{ay dkt -'Sd ka\>rr blZEM y)U t \\l tr 'S /a Me- et oH/df 0; Cr OQ1 A C y Oe'fep tf M'}'. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A. State, in complete.form, all names you have ever used or been known by including any and all aliases. B. List all TDCJ-CID identification numbers you have ever been assigned and all other state or federal prison or FBI numbers ever assigned to you. V III, f- SA CTIONS: A. Have you been sanctioned by any court as a result of any lawsuit you have filed? YES NO B. If your answer is yes,' give the following information for every lawsuit in which sanctions ere imposed. (If more than one, use another piece of paper and answer the same questions.) Court that imposed sanctions (if federal, give the district and division): .AON Case number: Approximate date sanctions were imposed: 4. Have the sanctions been lifted or otherwise satisfied? YFS Rev. 05/15 4 NO Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5 YES C. 'Has any court ever warned or notified you that sanctions could be imposed? NO L). If your answer is yes, give the following information for every lawsuit in which a warning was issued, (If ore than one, use another piece of paper and answer the same questions.) 1. Courtthat issued warning (if federal, give the district and division): /j/A „ 2, Case number: _ ~ IL 3. Approximate date warning was issued: Executed on DATE (Signature of Plaintiff) PLAINTIFF S DECLARATIONS 1. I declare under penalty of perjury all facts presented in this complaint and attachments thereto are true and correct, 2. I under tand, if I am released o tra sferred, it is m responsibility to keep the court infor ed of my current mailing address and failure to do so may re ult in the dismissal of this lawsuit. 3. I understand must exhaust all available administrative emedies prior to filing this la suit. 4. I unde stand I am prohibited from bringing an in forma pauperis la suit iff have brought three or more civil actions or appeals (fro a judgment in a civil actio ) in a court of the United States while i carcerated or detained in any facility, which lawsuits were dis issed on the ground they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless 1 am under mminent danger of serious physical injury. 5. I understand even if I am allowed to proceed withoutprepayment o costs, I am responsible for the entire filing fee and costs assessed by the court, which shall be deducted in accordance with the law from my inmate trust account by my custod an unt l the filing fee is paid. Signed this &sfi.3rA day of , ¦ /A . (Day) (month) (year) (Signature of Pla ntiff) WARNING: Plaintiff is advised any f lse or deliberately misleadin inform tion provided in resp nse to the bove questions may result in the imposition of sanctions. The sanctions the court may impose include, but are not limited to, monetary s nctions nd the dis is al of this action with prejudice. Rev, 05/15 5 Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TOE EAS ERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISIO OCT - 9 20(8 -P it r/; ?Ti& /fjfl dist orlS t On Behalf of hose Simllary Situated § PLAI IFF'S § § CIVIL AC ION o. V. i'* -, IORIE D VIS . DIRCTOR .TOCJ-CID I DIVIDUALY ND OFFICI LY DEFEND NT CIVIL RIGHT'S COMPL I T , MEMOR DU OF L W ND JURY DEM ND 1. COMES NOW . Plaintiff rfic an on Behalf of Those Similarly Situate , brings this Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to the authority U.S. Constitution's Eighth men ment prohibition against Cruel and Unusal Punish-ment . as well as under the authority of Texas Tort Claim ct for the IntentionPal Infliction of Emotional Distress , alleging that he is being confined under inhumane con itions. The conditions described herein are longstanding and pervas-ive an deprive Plaintiff of the minimal stan ar s of decency of life' s basic necessites. The Defendant1s have continued to ignore and they obstinately persist in insolent impiety and flight from the truth of their cruelty - See R iz v. Est-elle 668 F.2 266 ; Ruiz v.Estelle 679 F.2d 1115 •; Battle v. Anderson 564 F.2d -388 , 395 ; Fanner v. Brennan 511 U.S.. 825 ; Te .Gov.Code 34.034 ; KROGER Te . L.PL v. Subera 216 S.W. 3d 788 , 796 ; Twyman v. Twyman 855 S.W. 2 619 , 623 . Thus .this Court's Jurisdiction is under the U.S. Constitution , particalarl-y under the provision of the 8th and 14th men ment' s as well as the common law of TEX S for negligence , and intentional infliction of emotional distress , and Pursuant to the Institutionalized Person Act . 42 U.S.C. 1981 ; 1983 ; 1986 ;1988 and under 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 2201-02 . (. Pa e 1 Of 26 Page' s ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 7 Plaintiff expressly invokes this Court1 s Pendent Jurisdiction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to hear iolation of e as Law , Namely Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code 101. .101 - 102 . Furthermore , Plaintiff request this Court to hear these Claims and/ /or refer them to the State Court in Anderson County . Texas for resolution i in the 369th Judicial District Court . 2. REQUEST FOR CL SS CERTIFIC TIO This action is further brought Pursuant to Rule-23 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. , and Tex.R.Civ.P.42 on behalf of Plaintiff and on behalf of all Si iarly Situated .who are no and/or in future ill be incarcerated in DCJ. Such persons Numberin the thousands (1.000) and therefore are so numerous as to make it i practical to b dng the all before this court . There are questions of law and fact , which are c nmon to the entire class (i.e. does the totality of Plaintiff's Confinement am-ouht to Cruel and Unusal Punishment) (i.e. does maintaining'2- en in a 45sq.Ft. cell 24-hours a day for weeks amount to Cruel and Unusal Punishment)(i. e. does de -priving one of (5) Fi te hours of uninterruped sleep routinely amount to Cruel and Unusal Punishment) (i .e. does continuous exposure to extreme heat amount to Cruel and Unusal Punishment) (i .e. does the totality of Living Conitions at the Unit amount to the Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress). These are only a few of the co mon question of law nd fact. Plaintiff's Claims as set forth ~ are typical of the claims of all members of the class. Plaintiff is qu lified to and ill fairly , a equately , and justly protect the interst of each and all members of the class , by requesting Pursuant to the PLRA , th t the United St tes Inter-vene as a party with the full right of a Plaintiff 3. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL M S ER Pu suant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule-24 , and Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule-53 , Plaintiff(s) move the Court Appoint an Special Master and for the United Staes to Intervene as a party in this Suit , Plaintiff (s) aver that this request has merit and that this Court has Jurisdiction to Honor this request due to the complexity of the Federal Qu stion(s) . an the Volume of the discovery . and dispositive issues that matter will generate . In re Wilson 451 F.3d 161 , 164 ; Jack Walter & Son Corp. v. Mort-on Bldg. Inc. 737 F.2d 698 , 712 ; Monolithic Po er Sys. v. 02 Micro Int'l , 558 F.3d 1341 , 1346-47 (Fed.Cir. 2009). Pliantiff(s) maintain that they • can tin er Rule 23 Fed.R.Civ.P. Fairly , adquately and justly protect the interest of ~ each Plaintiff(s) and "ALL E BERS OF THE CLASS". ( Page 2 Of 26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 8 4. PARTIES Plaintiff TDGJ # . is a citizen of the United States . and currently a prisoner in the Texas Department of Cri inal Justice housed at the Unit . Located in County , Texas . (address): State - City Zip 5. Defendant: Lorie Davis is the Director of TDCJ-CID . at "ALL TIMES" relevant to this suit , is and was legally responsible for i plimenting and maintaining all TDGJ-CID regulations . including ho sing , maintinance . policies governing class-ification , security . safty , health , medical . and the over-all oversight 'of all conditions of confinement of offenders incarerated, in he Texas Department Of Criminal Justice , Defendant Lorie Davis deprived Plaintiff(s) of Equal Protecti-on and Due Process and Violated Plinatiff(s) Rights to be free of Crual and Un -sal Punish ent . Wanton Infliction of Pain and Suffering . Denial ofiMedical care . Denial of Proper Recreation , Denial of Basic Necessities of Life , and Freedom from Inhumane Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the 8th and 14th mendments to the U.S. Constitution , Defendant LotiBavis as at " LL TIMES" Operating Under The Color Of State Law and is Sued in her Individual and Official Capacity . Loc-ated at : Price Daniels Unit . Sr.Bldg. 209 W. 14th Street Rm.500 . Austin Tex. 78701 . Defendant: Bryan Collier , is the Executive Director of TDCJ-CID at " LL TIMES" to this suit is and was Legally responsible for i pli enting and aintaining all TDGJ-Regualations , Including Housing , Maintainance , Policies Govern ing Class-ification . Security , Safety , Health , Medical . and the over-all oversight of all Confinement of Ofeenders Incatcerated in the Texas Department Of Criminal Ju-stice , Defeandant Bryan Collier Deprived Plaintiff(s) of Equal Protection and Due Process and Violated Plaintiff (s) Rights to be free of Cruel and Unusal Puni-shment . Wanton Infliction of Pain and Suffering , Denial of Medical Care , Den-ial of Proper Recreation , Denial of Basic Necssities of Life , and freedom from Inhumane Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the 8th and 14th mendments to U.S. Constitution , Defendant Bryan Collier was at "ALL TIMES" Oper ting Under the Color Of State Law and is sued in his Individual and Official Capacate and Located at : P.0. Bo 99 , Huntsville . Texas . 75342 . ( Page 3 Of 26 P ge's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 9 Defendant: Jerry Catoe , Senior Warden is the arden of he H.H. Coffiel Unit , at "ALL TIMES" relevant to this suit as Legally Reponsible for the over-all Im-plimenttation and Maintaining of all Offender's under his Official Capacity Hous-e at the H.H. Coffiel Unit in Ten esse Colony , Texas and the Regulations Of Policies . Procedures and Rules Governing the day-to-day upkeep and care for LL Ofen er's under his Authority at the Confinemant , the Defendant Senior arden Je- r y Catoe Deprived Plaintiff (s) of Equal Protection and Treatment of Indiv duals Simil rly Situ ted , Due Process , and Violated Plaintiff (s) Rights to be f e of Cruel and Uhusal Punishment , Wanton Infliction of Pain and Suffering , Denial of Medical Care , Denial of Proper Recreation , Denial of Basic Necessities of Life , and Freedom fro Inhumane Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution , , Defendant Jerry Catoe was at ALL TIMES" Operating Under The Color of State Law and is sued in his Individual and Official Capacity , Located at : H.H. Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054 , Term. Colony . Texas , 75884. Defend ht: Jeffey Richardson . Associate Warden is the Associate War en at the H.H. Coffield Unit at "ALL TIMES" relevant to this suit as Legally Responsi le for the ver-all Implimentation and aintinance of all Offenders under his Official ca-pacity housed at the H.H. Coffield Unit in Tennessee Colony , Texas , and the Re-gulation of Poloicies , Procedures , and Rules Governing the day-to- ay upkeep and care for All Offenders under his Authority at the Confinement , the Defendant Asso-ciate Warden Richardson deprived Plaintiff (s) of Equal Protection and Due Process and Equal Treatment of Individuals Si ilary Situated and Violated Plaintiff (s) Rig-hts to be free of Cruel and Unusal Punishment , Wanton Infliction of pain and Suf-fering , Denial of Medical Care , Denial of Proper Rrecreation , Denial of Basic Necessities of Life , and Freedom fro Inhumane Condition of Confinement in violat-ion of the 8th and 14th mend ents to the fi .S. Constitution , Defendant Richarson is sued and was Operating under The Color Of State Law at "ALL TIMES" , and is sued in his Individual and Offical Capactity . Located at : H.H. Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054 , Tenn. Colony , Texas , 75884 . Defendant: P. Cooper , Associate Warden , Is the Associate at the H.H. Coffield Unit , at "ALL TI ES" relevant to this to this suit was Legally Responsible for the over-all Implimentation and Maintinance of ll Offenders under his Official Capacity housing at the H.H. Coffild Unit , and Regulation of Policies , Procedures and gules Governing the dat-to-day upkeep and Care for all Offenders under his uthority ( Page 4 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 10 at the Confinement , the Defendant Assicate Warden Cooper Deprived Plaintiff (s) of Equal Protection and Treatment of Individuals Similarly Situated and Violated Plai-ntiff(s) Rights to be free of Cruel and Unusal Punishnent , Wanton Infliction of ain and Suffering , Denial of Medical Care , Denial of Proper Recretion , Denial of Basic Necessities of Life and Freedom Fran Inhumane Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution of the land , Defendant Cooper is sued and as Operating under the Color of State Law and is sued inhftis individual an Official Capacity . Located at : H.H. Coffield Unit , 2661 F 2054 , Term. Colony , Texas , 75884 . &i The Defendant's LL and SINGUL R Function are by virtue of the uthority of the Texas Department Of Criminal Justice . Their duti s are primarily Governed toy Virt-ue of the Authority , FORMER STATUTES V.T.C.S. Art. 6166(a) et.seq. ; NEW STATU ES Title 4 , Sultitle, G.TEX.GOV. Codes. This Lawsuit is brought in Good Faith against the Defendant's who acted in BAD FAITH hile acting un er the Color of State Law. The Defendant's ALL and SINGUL R are SUED in their Individual as well as their Official Capacity for each and "ALL ACTS" and "OMISSIONS" of the Defendant's their "AGENT'S" and "EMPLOYEE'S" ALLEGED HEREIN . Were done under the Color and Pretense of Statutes , Regulations , Customs and Usage of The State Of Texas , and under the Authority of their Office . 7. The Defendant's along ith their agents and employees have implimented and mai-ntained policies hich enforced unconstitutional living conditions for years thro- -ugh-out TDCJ , particularly at the Cof field Unit , where this Plaintiff (s) is h used . Plaintiff (s) is prepared to produce documentation which ill demonstate that the Defendant's have long been aware of there unconstitutional living condit-ions dating as f r back as 1982 , where Judge Justice declared these conditions unconstitutional . hus Plaintiff(s) allege that the Totality of his confinement is unconstitutional . ThesTotality of Double-Celling , Sleep Deprivation , the absence of toilets in the day ooms and Rec-yards , Overcro ded Showers and Extreme Heat are Sub-human liv-ing conditions , which have been repeatedly over the years been brought to the at-tention of the Defendant's directly as well as through their agents and e ployees the grievance process. The ans er ost often given is that Cof field does not have to meet OSHA and ACA-Standards because it was built prior to the 2250 style Units and ingress and egre-ss is done every hour . yet they kno from operation Revie (cameras) that the do ( Page 5 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 11 -ors o not roll for 2 and 3 hour's with logs being Falsified . THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS HAT HAVE BEE REPE EDLY GRIE ED ST TING IN P RT S FOLLOWED : (1.) Double-celling : in a cell measuring 45 sq.ft, or less for 24 hour per day for wee is at a time is Cruel and Unusal Punishment ; See RUIZ v. ESTELLE 679 F.2d 1115. (2.) Sleep-Deprivation : on a nightly basi here one is awaken for lay-ins , mail , Count , pill window , a d Breakfast so that one never gets (5) five hours of unint-errupted sleep-. See H RPER v. SHO ERS 174 F. d 716 and LKER v. SCHULT 717 F.3d 119. (3.) o-Tiolets : in the da -rooms and Rec-yards is a serious sanitation hazzard as one is repeatedly exposed to exposed to human-feces ; See Farmer v. Brennan 511 U.S 825 at 837 -43 . (4.) Over-crow ed Showers : constantly creating a safety and/or he4th hazzard by pl-acing more than 100-prisoners in the shower-area where there are only 60-Showers. See Rhodes v. Cha man 101 S.Ct. 2372 (5.) Extreme Heat : There are no oscillating or exhaust fans in the day-roo s with them being contantly over-crow ed . These individu lly may be questioned as offer-ing only inimal har , but for these conditions to exist for years even if they o meet OHS and ACA Standards are Cruel and Unusal Punishment. See Helling v. Mc-Kinney 509 U.S. 25 at 32. 8. Inaddition to these facts , the Texas Legislature has implimented , Tex.Civ. - Prac. & Rem. Code 101.021 ; 101.029 and Tex.Gov. Code 311.034 , which allows one to seek co ensation for these intentional practices; Sea Kroger Tex.L.P. . Siib-era 216 S.W. 3d 788 at 796 and Colquitt v. Brazoria S.W. 3d at 538.543. 9. The following is a narrative of the on-going deliberate indifference to the ex- -treme and dangerous living condition on the Coffield Unit , which Plaintiff (s) is subjected to. 10. The m in building of Cof field is qn older structure built around 1975 , it is ( Page 6 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 12 called the "GLASS HOUSE" , because total exerior of the building in made up of tho-usands of glass panels. These glass panels are not tinted , thus the sun shines directly into the building ."like frying ant's ith a magnifing glass". he Cell-block areas , hall ys , dinning halls , an gyms are not air-conditioned . 11. The structure of the main building is made up of concrete , steal , glass , and red bric . This structure is actually designed to be conductive to absord heat . he hallways , cells , and ay-rooms become like ovens , with summer temperatures xeceeding 100°F routinely in the main uilding and are known to reach 120 F. 12. Plaintiff(s) constantly sweats . is fatigue due to being urible to sleep due to the extreme heat . It is so hot in his cell , that it does not cool do n enough to sleep until about 2:03 am , which is hen Breakfast starts. Plaintiff(s) asserts that being confined under these dangerous heat conditions is Cruel and Unusal and inhumane Punishment and Violates His 8th and 14th A en ments under the U.S. Consti¬ tution . 13. The Coffield Unit as designed for single-cell accupancy , but someone decided to use doudle-cell accupancy ; and this practice has been going-on for decades with the ACA turning a blind eye. 14. Each cell is about 45 sq. ft. or less , with a out 21 sq. ft. of usuable floor space - space so cramped that t o standing persons ust squeeze by each other to pass . Thus one can o little ore that lie or sit on their bunks or the floor. 15. During the "LOCKDOWNS" one is confined to this cell for 24-hour per ay for we4e s at a time . Most recently it was for 16 and 19 consecutive ays respectively . from May 31 , 2016 to dune 6 , 2016.an fro Oct. 10 , 2016 to Oct. 29 , 2016 . Thsoe on Medium-custody are confined in this , manner during the normal courje. of operations for 20-hours or more per-day . and the "LOCK DOWNS" are at laest ev-ery 90 - ays lasting a minimum of 14 days • 16. Tiier e are two bunks in each cell (i.e. steal-pl tes bolted to the wall) . how-ever . top-bunk does not oxne equiped with a ladder or step to assist with cl rib-ing up and down which is the cause of much friction , not to mention the safety hazzard it c eates. ( Page 7 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 13 17. F rthermore } due to the fact that the cells are over-c ow ed jit stands to re-son that day-rooms designed to accom edate single-cell occupancy would be over¬ row ed also. The day-rooms are designed to hold a rated capacity of 48-inmates . hoeever ; at cho time . shower-time j and major sports e ents and movies there are more than 100-prisoners c ammed into this space. 18. Further aggravating this matter is the fact that there are not any fans inside the day-room f nor is there hot running ater in the sink an there is no toilet in the day-room 5 only one urinal . Because the doors are not opened for hours at a time j it is not Unusal for one to "DEFECATE AND THROW IT OUT OF THE WINDO ". Older prisoners on Medication ave been nown to "DEFECATE ON THEMSELVES"19. Requests to have cells on one (1) ro and three (3) ro reseved for such have been ignored for years . Yet it is rumored that the TDCJ Website says this is so. 20. The noise in these over-crowded day-rooms is often deafening and often there is no place to sit down in the day-room except on the floor . 21. The over-cro ing at the Coffield Unit negatively effects the ay-to-day act -ivies - Prisoners at the Coffield Unit are confronted with the reality that over-cro ding is omniprent ithin the confines of this prison. The serious harm cause by the confinement of two prisoners in a 45sq. ft. cell are easily recognized as study after study has shown. 22. These over-crowding con itions are longstanding nd pervasive and e ercise a imialignant effect on all aspects of Plaintiff (s) life . and are counter pro uctive to rehabilitation. This exampled by the fact that any prisoners think it is alright to pack over lOOmien in the shower that has only 60-showerheads. he incremental ex-posure to disease and infection is greatly increased by this and like wise the potential for Viollence is increased when you have naked men packed in the shower like cattle in a dip. 23. Plaintiff(s) contends that his confine ent in these overcrowded conditions is a vexation to his spirit as it is the Intentional Infliction of Bnotional Distr- -ess / hich amounts to Cruel and Unusal Punishment in Violation of his 8th and 14-th Amendments Rights under the U-S. Constitution . ( Page 8 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 14 24. Plain iff (s) contends that each Defendant has been given notice repeatedly and are ell a are of the over-cro ded unsafe living conditions / and has failed to re-medy the situ tion } or to remorve Plaintiff(s) from the main building's overcro-wded living conditions . 25. Sanitation in the chowhall is dispcible and deplorable. Sanitation is a asic human need. The eating utencils , "SPOONS , CUPS , AND TRAYS", are not properly sanitized after each meal. The spoons are often greasy and/or have food residue on them. Cups are often still dirty. The trays are not properly dried and still have pu dles of ater in them. These unsanitary eating utencils are conductive to the spre d of harmful bacteria. Plaintiff (s) has became ill on several occassions after eati g in the chow hall. 26. ' There are flies swar ing in the dining area . the flies a e so numerous . that the Plaintiff(s) must eat with one hand . while fanning flies with the other. 27. he cho hall is infested with giant cockroaches. They can be seen cra ling on the floor and walls while you are eating and behind the serving-line. It is comm-on knowledge (i.e. workers & former wor ers) that the food storage areas and pre-paration areas are also infested with coc rouches and mice due to the floor being in disrepare . ?• 28. There are birds flying around inside the cho -hall while Plaintiff (s) is eat-ing. Plaintiff (s) has been infor ed that birds eat the combeard while standing in it defecating. Then the combeard is served to us prisoners. 29. There is Unual Standing Puddles of Dirty Water on the Floor of the Cho -hall hile Plaintiff (s) is eating. The food servers do not wear gloves most of the time and the tables are not properly wiped and sanitized after each use . The ceiling leaks when it rains , with water dripping on the tables. The paint can be clearly seen pelling frcm the ceilings directly over dinning-room tables. It has been re- -ported to Plaintiff (s) that "BIj CK MOLD" is growing in the chaw-hall . Education Department . in the pipe-chases behind the cells on several cell-bloc s. 30. These unsanitary conditons in the chow-hall in the Coffield Unit ain building ad s to the Cruel and Uhusal Punishment . ( Page 9 Of 26 P ge1s ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 15 31. The condition of the Cells are in a state of deterioration. The paint is peel-ing -off the walls and is orn off of the bares , the loc ers the ceilings , and bun s j leaving expose rust. he sink in the cell does not have "HO " running wat- -er j only cold water. The ventillation system is clogged with layers of build up dust ant lent. 32. M ny cells are infested with cockrouched j ant's and/or spiders. Birds fly in and out of the cells and day-rooms defecating throughout leaving areas dropping Ee-cescon every thing. 33. The Plaintiff(s) is systematically denied (5) five hours of uninterrupted sleep nightly. This sleep deprivation is intentionally caused by and through the count policy j mail j lay-ins f pill-wim o } and with the breakfast and shower schrdules. 2 34. The Guards Conduct nightly "BED BOOK COUNTS" at 10:30p ; at pack-ti e count on week-days a d at 1:30am rack-time count week-ends. Plaintiff(s) must present his ID -Card and/or reciet his number to the Officer. If Plaintiff(s) is asleep j he is aw ken every time these counts take place. 35. There are loud-speakers on each ing. During the night the guards in the control Rotunda ill ma e numerous announcements j at various hours through-out the night. A half a dozen times is not uncommon. 36. These speakers are very loud , and awaken The Plaintiff(s) each time they are usedAt count-time ; loud bells ring to begain count ; one to get ready ; two for the count , and three for count-clear. This occurs at least three (3) times during the / night , 12:00 mid-night . 1:30 a and 4:30 am. Thus . Plaintiff(s) is Denied (5) five hours of uninterrupted sleep . 37. lthrough grievances on this sleepOdeprivation have deen answered stating that breakfast begins at 3:00 am ; this is false . A review of the cameras will reveal that chow is dropped to the day-room anytime about 2:30 am . This means that if he Plaintiff (s)wants to go to Break ast . he must get up at 2:00 am to prepare . beca-use . if he is not rea y when the door opens the guard ill sla it closed- .So even if Plaintiff(s) was not awa en repeatedly . he would still be unable to get Five (5) hours of uninterrupted sleep. If Plaintiff(s) goes to Brea -fast at 2:30 am - being the first wing drop - he may not get back to his bunk until 3:45 a - ( Page 10 Of 26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 16 - and/or later . Then as early as 4:30 am .i *is shower ti e . 38. Thus ? bet een the "BED BOOK COUN , THE LOUD SPEAKERBLARING . COUNT BELLS ARE RINGING THE 2:00 a BREAK FAST j ND 4:30 am SHOWER". Plaintiff(s) is not able to get even (4) Four hours of uninterrupted sleep each night. Sleep is a Basic Human Need . 39. Plaintiff (s) is suffering "CHRONIC FATIGUE" due td being deprived of adequate sleep. Plaintiff(s) and others have repeatedly grieved this issue with relief be-ing denied. Plaint iff (s) contends that this systematic sleep deprivation is Cruel and Unusal Punishment , Violation of the 8th and 14th mendments of the U.S. con-stitution. 40. The are No toilets in the day-rooms or Rec-yards / nor do they provide cells on one and three-row . although they have been repeatedly requested to do so - As results this causes The :Plaintiff (s) to suffer at least one of the following : 1) Plaintiff(s) must degrade himself by defecating on hi self ; 2) Plaintiff/s) must degrade himself by defecating on the floor the day-room ; 3) Plaintiff (s) must hold his defecation inside his bowels which cause him pain for 2 or 3 hours. The Defendant s are well aware of this- See Grievance #2016012145 and # 2016-012149 filed in sept. 2015 and compare answer to Grievances # 2016149396 filed May 2016. 41. In a dition , Plaintiff (s) has own grievance and requested operation review (camera used for survielance) . which will reveal that the logs are being falsied. The Defendant's refuse to remedy this violation of YDCJ Policy t>y simply reser- -ving a caell on 1 row and 3 row if they will not install toilets. 42. There is only one (1) Urinal and one (1) SI K PER EACH DAY ROOM - The sink does not have running Hot-water. Hot running water of at 100 °F is neccessary to properly w sh ones hands. It is only through the grace of "GOD" that some epedemic has not killed a b nch of. Us. This is a serious sanitation issue. 43. Plaintiff (s) contends that t being deliberately denied access to a toilet for hours at a time on numerous occasions is Cruel and Unusal Punishment , as well as the Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress . ( Page 11 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 17 44. Understaffing is a "MAJOR CCMPONANT" of the "INHUM NE" as well as the anger-ous and unsafe conditions on the Coffield Unit. E ch housing ing consist of one and ro day-roan - one day-room for 1 & 2 row . and one for 3 & 4 row. Each row ho-uses up to forty - two (42) prisoners , for a total of 168 - prisoners on all four ro s. There are (6) six of these wings radiating from the rotunda . being 1.004 prisoners on a cell block. lthough there :are guards in the rotunda to roll doors . there is only (1) one guard on each wing-that translates into (1) one guard to mon-itor 168-prisoners. - Impossible ! That's 168-prisoners scattered in four (4) rows with 21-cells each . as well as two separate dat-rooms that cannot be viewed sim-ultaneously. There are times when one guard is assigned to (2) t o ings . that is 336-prisoners. The under-staffing is even worse at nifgt operating with a skeleton crew. This is dangerous , unsafe , and contributes to Plaintiff(s) anxiety. 45. Thous ands of glass windows that make-up a greated of the e terior walls of the main building , pose a three-fold threat of harm. The "FIRST" is the fact that these windows are of common glass . nd not of reinforce security glass . These glass-pa-ines are e sily broken and "M NY" are broken out uring the Hot Summer Months .due to the extreme heat. The broken glass is very sharp , and can easily fashioned into a dangerous eapen. Upon furhter information and belief . the- record will sho that prisoners and guards have been assaulted with these glass shanks. 46. The1 SECOND' threat of harm is the fact that there windows are not re laced Until De-cember or even as late as January of the following year. This ex oses Plaintiff(s) and others to the cold tempertures of winter . along with the wind-blown rain. 47. The "THIRD" threat of harm is the fact these windo s are not tinted .thus allo -ing the sun to shine directly into the interior of the Unit . cells included refer to paragraph 10 and 11 herein. 48. Continually e posing the Plaintiff(s) to these unsafe living conditions .amount to the Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress . and Violates his 8th and 14th mendments Rights Under U.S. Constitution. 49. Per TDCJ-policy , general populatio mini um-in Offenders . are entitled to re- ( Page 12 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 18 -cieve four (4) hours of out of cell e ercise . and/or out-door exerice each day ; with one (1) hour not to include day-room ti e. 50. Recor s were taken to document how often recreational out of cell exercise has been called since the month of january . 2016 . 51. By contrast in a 31-day calendar period , out of cell exercise is suppose to be called at least twice per-day ; that would mean 62-periods of out of cell exerc-ise per-31 calendar days. For the period of January 16.to 2016. The average amount of out of cell exercise is 13 times pre-month . with in ave a e of about two (2) ; out-door recreation periods per-month . Denial of regular out of cell exercise and out- oor exercise . particularly consi ing that there are 2-prisoners in a one- -man cell this is Cruel and Uhusal Punishment in Violation of Plaintiff (s) 8th and 14th A end ents Rights under the United States Constitution. 52. It is Dangerous and Unsafe not to p ovide a ladder and/or steps for prisoners to climb up and down from the top bun , which is (5) five feet above the floor and is the cause of many fights between prisoners . as one must stand on the bottem bunk to reach the shel es , which are 7 to 8 feet above the floor. 53. The Defendant's have a duty to protect the he th and saf of prisoners not pl-acing them in living conditions that are kno ingly unsafe. The Init War en . ACA-Officials and safety managers have been repeatedly through-out the years have been ade aware of the safety hazards and health risk vjei 1-60 request and grievances and has failed to correct them . With the top-bunk being 5-feet from the floor and the locker and shelves are 8-feet fro the floor . not having climbing i pliments installed to assist prisoner getting in and out of the top bunk and/or with reaching their locker and/or shelves is Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress y as well as Cruel and Unusal Puni-shment in light of the harrards involved. Even those prisoners assigned to the bo-tto -bunk is negatively effected by the a scence of climbing impliments. Even the medical deartment will not respond to requests to have climbing i pliments install¬ ed for medical reasons. Thus . Defendant' s vi their agents and employees refuse to accommedate Plaintiff (s) with safe living conditions in Violation of the 8th and 14th mendments to the United States Constitution. ( Page 13 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 19 54Tex.Civ.Prac.'& Pem. Code 101.001 creates a government liability under the Texas Tort Claim Act 101.001(2) "EMPLOYEE" eans a person . including an officer or "AGENT" . who is in the paid service of a governmental Unit'by competent aut-hority . hut does not include an independa t contract ... 55. Section 101.001(3) "GROVER ENTAL UNIT" means:: (A) This State and All seve-ral Agencies of Government that collectively constitute the Government of this State . including other Agencies bearing different designations . and dep rtment bureaus . board . com ission , office . agencies , councils , an courts . .and (D) any other institution , agency , or orda of government the status and auth-ority of which are derived from, the constitution of the State of Texas or from £aws~passe -by the Legislature under the Constitution. 56. Section 104.002 state Liability . conduct covered (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) the state is liable for indeirmification under this chapter 'only'. if the damages are based on an act or om ission by the person in the course and scope of the person's Office , Employment . or contractual performance for . or service on behalf of the agency , institution . depart ent and if : (2) the dam-ages arise out of a cause of action for Depriv tion of'''RightS'';'-Privileges . or Immunity secured by the Constitution or law of this State or the United States. 57. Due to the systematic sleep eprivation , caused by the Defendants . the Pla-intiff(s) suffers from "CHRONIC F TIGUE" . and all of its associated sysptoms . Refer to paragraph 12 and 33 through 39 herein. 58. Due to the stress brought on by these dispicable and uncostitutional livung conditions in their totality . Plaintiff(s) alleges that he suffers intenses st-omach cra ps . a constant sensation of needing to use the toilet and negetiely effects his quality of life in general. This is constantly aggrevated when is de-nied access to the toilet for 2 and 3 hours in the day-room. 59. Plaintiff(s) alleges that he suffers from heat exhaustion . due to being ex-posed to extreme heat conditions during, the sunmer months . Refer to praraphs 10 and 11 and 12. 60. The Defendant's systematic failure to properly invstigate the Plaintiff(s) 26 ( Page 14 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 20 Mministrative Remedies is in fact used as a form of Reltaliation and an attempt to deter Plaintiff(s) from seeking any remedy for his living conditions. This Vi-olates the Plaintiff (s) First Amendment Right Under the U.S. Conctitution and Texas Constitution . State L w nd DCJ-CID Policy. 61. As set forth herein and the attached grievances . acts and/or omissions of the Defendant's . their Agent's . and E loyee's constitute a conspiracy to co- -nduct and/or Participate in subjecting Plaintiff(s) to the Intentional Inflict-ional of Elnotitonal Distress . which is Cruel and Unusal Punishment inviolation of thecSth and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. 62. The Defendant's being two or more persons . each conspired and acted in con- -cert ith the intent to participate , directly in the deprivation of Plaintiff (s) Constitutional Right's. C 63. Specifically . by their ords and actions s detailed herein . and the at-tached grievances . The Defendant's objectively manifested an agreement to par¬ icipate . directly and/or Indirctly in Deprivation of Constitutional Right's . Namely the 8th and 14th A endment's. 64. Plaintiff (s) have been and continues to be harmed with the Intemtional Inf-liction of Emotional Distress . which amount's to Cruel and Unusal Punish ent b the unlawful agreement entered into by the Defendant's and by the Acts un er-taken in the Furhter ance thereof. 65. The Defendant's are therefore liable to Plaintiff(s) in thier Official as well as their Individual Capacity. 66. As a results of the Acts and/or amissions set forth herein and the attache grievances . the conspiracy of the Defendant's to Intentionally Inflict Emotional Distress . Plaintiff(s) has been systematically subjected to Cruel and Unusal Pun-ishment . hich caused Plaintiff (s) to suffer depression resulting in mental an-guish. 67. In additional . the acts of the Defendant's as set forth herein nd the atta -ached grievances have injured the Plaintiff (s) in his Right to good Government and Honest Service. { Page 15 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 21 68. ie Defendant's Agent1s . Signer1s of Step 1 & 2 Grievance # and Signer' s of Step 1 & 2 Grievance # „ did refuse to allaow Plaintiff (s) relief from the Cruel and Unusal Punishment reulting from the Total-ity of his living Conditions . hich should been P6-Housing . 69. The Defendant's endorsed the Warden's action with another Agent at the Step 1 & 2 Level of the Griev nce process . and by failing to take corrective action when this behavior was brought to their attention via laters and petitions. 70. The Defendant's failure to properly train and/or supervice their agent's re- -sulted in the foregoing deprivations of Plaintiff(s) Constitutioal Right's . such failure to train and/or properly supervise a ounts to a deliberate ans reck- less Indiffence to Plaintiff(s) Constitutional Rights and is wanton and:reckle-ss as to be a kno ing reckless illingnes that a deprivtion of these right occ-ures . 71. The implimentation and Maintaining the practices stated herein and the atta-ched grievances cuased Plaintiff (s) to suffer Mental Anguish and Emotional Dis-tress. Plaintiff(s) accordingly is Entitledto Co pensatory and Punitive Damages in the amount requested herein. 72. The Conduct described herein and the attached grievances as performed by the Defendant's . their A ent's and Emplotee's in their Individual and Official Capa-city . and under the Color of State Law. 73. The Conduct described herein and the attached grievances as the preximate \ cause of Plaintiff (s) In uries and Deprivayion of his Rights Securred by the U-SConstitution . under the 8th and 14th mendment's . 74. The Constitutional Deprivations Descibed Herein and the attached grievances are the Proximate result of Official Policies . Customs . and Practices of the DCJ-CID and H.H- Coffield Unit . and The Defendant's ere aware of the Unconst-itutional Conduct and Policies Complained of Condoned and Were Deliberately In-different to such conduct and policies. 75. The Defendant s iolated. Plaintiff(s) 8th an .14th men ment's when they Ca- ( Page 16 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 22 -used him to be confined in the Totality of the living Conditions on the Coffield Unit described herein a d the attached grievances . particularly . but not limited to confining him in a cell measuring 45 sqyare feet and/or less ith another pri-soner for 24 hours per day for weeks at a time. Most 31 . 2016 to June 6.2016 and from Oct.10. 2016 to Oct.29. 2016. 76. The Defendant's "ALL and SINGLUR" functions are by virtue of the Authority of TDCJ-CID. Their Duties are primarily governed by : ."FORMER STATU ES" V. -C-S Art. 6166' et.seq. "NEW ST TES" Titlte 4. Subtitle G.Tex.Gov. Co e . particularly f but Liminted to 311.034 and Tex.Civ.Prac.& Re . Code 101.021 and 101.029 . 77. he Defendant's "ALL and SINGLUR" o e a Legeal Duty and Responsibility to use due c re to insure that Plaintiff (s) is not needlessly Deprived of the Right to be free from Cruel and Unusal Punishment . 78. The Defendant's "ALL and SINGLUR" owe a Legal Duty and Responsibility to use due care to Insure that Plaintiff(s) is not Needlessly mage to suffer to Onus of the otality of the Living Conditions on the H-H. Coffield Unit . Particularly . but not LIMITED to Slepp-Deprivation79. The Defendant's "ALL and SINGLUR" owe a Legal Duty and Responsibility to use due care to insure that the practice of confining Plaintiff(s) is Consttitution-ally Adequate. 80. The Defendant's "ALL and SINGLUR" have employed the Unconstitutional Practice described herein and the attached grievances for years inspite of repeated reque-st's to end them. 81. The Arbitrary E ployment of these Policies Practices - Acts . and Omissions of The Defendant's which Knowingly and Intentionally bestewed on Pl intiff(s) evOen after repeated requests by Plaintiff (s) and others to end them were done with the sole Intent to be Used as a Punitive Meansure to get taugh on Crime Calculated to Intentionally Inflict Emotional Distress on Plaintiff(s). 82. The Defendant's being two or more Persons . Conspired and Acted Concert with the I tent to ccomplish Lawful Acts and Additionally to ccomplish Unlawful Acts means for the Hanning of Plaintiff (s). ( Page 17 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 23 83- The Defendant's Con ucted Numerous Acts in the Furtherance of their Agreement and Conspiracy , Inclu ing eacg and everyone of the Unlawful Improper f Unethical an Other ise Wrongful Acts Alleged Herein and the attached grievances84. Plaintiff(s) had been and Continues to be Harmed by the Acts and/or Omissions of The Defendant's 85. The Dedfenda t's are therefore Liable to Plaintiff(s) for Civil Conspiracy under The State Of Te as and for Damages as a Results of Such Conspiracy and as a Result of each of the Acts taken in the Furhterance of such Conspiracy. 86. . In carrying out the acts aet forth herein and the attached grievances ; The Defendant's acted Intentionally and/or Recklessly. 87. The Conduct of The Defendant's w s/is Extreme a d Outrageous. 88. The Actions of The Defendant's have caused Plaintiff(s) Emotional Distress. 89. The Emotional Distress Suffered by Plaintiff(s) as a Result of the Intentional . Rec less . E treme and Out-rages Conduct's of These Defendant's is Severe. 90. The Defendant's are hterefore liable to Plaintiff(s) for Intentional Inflic -tion of E otional Distress . under the common Law of The State Of Te as . incl-uding but not "LIMITED" to Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Codes 101.021 and 101.029 and Tex.Gov. Code 311.034. 91. As public Official charged with the Legal Duty and Responsibility to use due care to insure that Plaintiff (s) is Properly Housed and Not Sub ecte to the Dis-picable-Inhumane Living Conditions Described herein and the Attached grievances and owe to the public a Duty to their Official Functions Honestly. 9 . In Not housing Plaintiff (s) in Constitutionally-Adequate Living Conditions fter Repeated Request by hi and others . breached those "DUTIES" of honesty and due care. 93. As a result of the Defendant's breach of their DUTY of due care . Plaintiff(s) ( Page 18 6 page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 24 has Incurred Depresion . Anger . Hopelessness . Sleep-loss Sever Mental Anguish and Emotiinal Distress - in connection to the Inhumane Livung Conditions describ-ed herein and in the attached grievances . Particularly - BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE "LOCK-DOWN" . WHERE HE IS CONFI ED 24-HOURS A DAY FOR WEEKS AT A TIME WITH ANO HER PRISONER IN A CELL MEASURING 45 SQU RE FEET OR LESS 94- As a result The Defendant'd are Liable to Plaintiff (s) for Negligence Under The Common Law Of Texas . as ell as Older ex,Gov. Co e 311.034. 95. E ecutive Dirctive 10.61 TDCJ Safety Policy . uthority ; Tex.Gov. Code 493.-006(6) Policy : he Texas Department Of¦Criminal Justice shall emphasize a safe environment for all employee's and Offender's [inmates] . The DCJ is committed to conpliance ith all applicable and safety rules an regulations - Elrrployee' s sahll follo all safety ploicies and prodedures and report unsafe conditions . hazzards or acts as describe in AD-10.20."Identifying and Reporting Facility aintaince Requirements ".AD-10.63 "Operatioal Risk Assassment Progra " and the TDCJ Risk Man-age ent Program anuel. 96. This Directive imposes a Duty upon the TDCJ Defendant's . This Diractive is Signed by the Defendant' s Of TDCJ-CID. 97. AD-10.20 (rev.8) . June 8 . 2015 Applicability : ALL facilities in which The Texas Department Of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) or (AGENCY) staff are e ployed or here offender's are housed. Policy : The TDCJ shall ensure facilities are xnain-tianed in proper order and safe respair. Every emplo ee is responsible for id-entifing and reporting facility deficiences . especially hazzards that coul pose a threat to the safety . security . and well-being of TDCJ . offenders . or visitors. 98. Definition : "AD-10.20 Progra " is a system- ide . standardied facility de-ficiency detection and reparting process Unit under Warden or non-Unit depart-ment representative over-sight. A successful AD 10.20 Program eliminates secur-ity . safety and health hazzards for staff . offen ers and visitors and extends the life of the facility. 99. "Deficiency" is the failure or deterioration of the hysial plant . infrast-ructure . or a component''thereof to include installed equipment and fencing. ( Page 19 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 25 100. "Facility" for the purpose of this directive . includes TDGJ Units . - 101. Pl intiff(s) has alleged herein that the exterior windows are easily broken and pose a serious threat of ha m . He has also alleged the e treme deterioration of the cells at Coffield Unit. He has alleged that these conditions are long-sta -nding and pervasive. 102. Plaintiff (s) has also alleged that there are no tioltets in the day-rooms . nor cells designed for such . and that there is no Hot-running water in the day-rooms and cells. 103. The Plaintiff (s) has alleged that the Chow-hall . the cells and day-rooms are unsanitary . and pose a threat of harm by means of unsanitary living conditions 104. Thus. The Defendant's are in direct violation of ED-10.61. he TDCJ Safety Ploicy and in violation of both Texas State Law. and The U.S- Constitution105. Administrative Directive : D-03.40 out of cell-time for general population Offender's [inmates] Authority :Tex-Gov. Code 493.001 . 493.006(6) . 494-001 . 494.002(a) . and 499.102(a) are also being viol ted106 . Policy : The Texas Department Of Criminal Justice [TDCJ] shall allow gene l population Offendre's out-of-cell for non-prograimnatic activtes based on uniform standards defined arganizational and ad inistrative require-ment - 107. Mini um Requirement by custody level . A.Gl/OT , G3/P3 . and G1/G2 Custody Off-enders . inc uding Medically Unasigned (1) weeend activity . required that ea-ch weekend-day . prison Offender's classifed as Gl/OT . G2/P3 . and G3/P3 sha-11 be given an oppoetunity to send at least seven hours participating in non- progra atic activities . Offenders [inmates] shall be provided with an opportu-nity to spend at least (2) two hou s of the allotted time in the gym or out d-oor's . if weather per its. 108. Plaintiff(s) has alleged in his allegations that the Defendant's are not Fol-lowing this Policy in regards to out-of-cell exercise. ( Page 20 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: 26 100. "Facility" for the purpose of this directive . includes TDGT Units ... 101. Plaintiff(s) has alleged herein that the exterior windows are easily bro en and pose a serious threat of harm . He has also alleged the extreme deterioration of the cells at Coffield Unit. He has alleged that these conditions are long-sta -nding n pervasive. 102. Plaintiff(s) has also alleged that there are no tioltets in the day-rooms . nor cells designed for such . and that there is no Hot-running w ter in the da -rooms and cells. 103. he Plaintiff (s) has alleged that the Cho -hall . the cells and day-rooms are unsanitary . an pose a threat of harm by means of unsanitary living conditions104. Thus. The Defendant s are in direct violation of ED-10.61. he TDCJ Safety Ploicy a d in violation of both exas State Law. and The U-S- Constitution105. A ministrative Directive : D-03.40 out of cell-time for general population Offender's [inmates] Authority :Te .Gov. Code 493.001 . 493.006(6) . 494.001 . 494.002(a) . and 499.102(a) are also being violate 106 . Policy : The Texas Department Of Criminal Justice [TDCJ] shall allo general population Offendre's out-of-cell for non-progra matic activtes based on uniform standards defined arganizational and administrative require-ment . 107. Minimum Requirement by custody level . A.Gl/OT , G3/P3 , and G1/G2 Custody Off-enders , inckuding Medically Unasigned (1) weeend activity . required that ea-ch weekend-day . prison Offender's classifed as Gl/OT . G2/P3 , and G3/P3 sha-11 be given an oppoetunity to send at least seven hours partici ating in non- programatic activities . Offenders [inmates] shall be provide with n opportu-nity to spend at least (2) two hours of the allotte time in the gym or out-d-oor's . if weather permits. 108. Plai tiff(s) has alleged in his allegations that the Defendant s are not Fol-lowing this Policy in regards to out-of-cell exercise. ( Page 20 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: 27 109. AD-03.40 in sedion II Warden's Responsibilities (A) each Warden shall deve-lope a 24-hour Building schedule detailing the programmatic and non-programma-tic activities and the hourly ingrees and agress procedure as well as the Unit Recreation detailing the recreational activities 110. Executive Directive 02.ol Subiuct TDCJ Ethics Policy: Standards OF Cohdu-ct . ( ) an employee shall : (1) Perform Official Duties in a Lawfuls . Profe-ssioneal . and Ethical manner benefitting the State and TDCJ . and D-03.82 subject : Management of Offender Grievances . Authority : Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 14.005 . 110.001 and .012 . Tex.Gov. Code 493.001 . 493.006(b) . 493.014 . 501.008 . U.S. 1997(e) C.F.R. 35.107(a) . 115.52(a).(g) pplicability : Te as Department Of Criminal Justice . Sect. VII Responsibility (a) and (f) Section (f) Investigations State in part . the Unit Grievance Investigator is responi-ble for the investigation of step-1 grievances. 111. Plaintiff (s) alleges that upon firther information and belief . "The Unit Grievance Investigators are covering-up these unconstitutional Violation and clear Violations of TDCJ policies. Therefore .The Unit Grievance Investidators (UGFTs) Failure to polivy has the effect of rendering the grievance procedures ineffective . and this has a chilling effect upon the Plaintiff(s). Thus viola -ting his First men ment Rights to seek redress of grievances and free speech 112. The Program Directive 22 [PD-22] is the Generl Rule of conduct and Discip-linary Action Guideline For Employee1 s ... and State . - - Policy : Employee1 s are representative of the Texas Department Of Cri inal Justice and are expect -ed to a here to the highest stan ards of conduct while on- uty ... Discussion: I. Employee1 s responsibility to kno the rules set forth in dirctive and seek clarification . if necessary. Not being aware of the existence of any of the ules is not a "DEFENSE" for "VIOLATIONS"113. Plaintiff(s) points out that according to PD-22 it is the E ployee's respo-nsibility to know the rules and that not being aw re of the rules is not a De-finse for violations. Plaintiff(s) alleges that in numerous step 1 & 2 grieva-nces leeter's and 1-60 Request written by hi and others throughout the years the Defendant's have been repeatedly placed on notice of the Violations of his constitutional fight's as well as violations of Texas State Law and Interal D-CJ - Policies - ( Page 21 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: 28 114. The Defen ant's have repeatedly ingnored notifications by Plaintiff(s) and others , a d/or have reported delibecate false information in the course of re-sponding . Used biased "Unit Grievance Investigations" that do not properly and thoroughly investigate these issue and that give xnaningless boiler-plate's responses to the grieva ces. 115. Such acts of moral turpitude are concerted acts which upon further informa-tion and belief . violate the conspiracy la s of Title 42 U-S-C- 1995(3) and 1986 and Texas Penal Code. They are under-handed efferts to assail The Plainti-ff(s) effect's to be heard-to frustrate his use of the grievance procedure and render the "VEHICLE FOR REVIEW" Ineffective. 116. Plaintiff(s) alleges that total disregard for State Law . Federal Law . and DCJ Policy , is in and of itself an assault upon the Liberty's of the Plintif-f(s) First and Eighth and Fourteenth mendment Right's Under The U.S- Constit-ution. 117. Plaintiff(s) alleges that the Defendant's are in direct Violation of the Follo ing Rules of PD-22 "Rule - 7 - Substandard Duty Perormance" - An employee shall perform dutys in a anner that meets or exceeds the minimum standards es-tablished for the e ployees pesition118. PD-22 "Rule 8" : Failure to follow prper safety Procedures . an Employee . is required to observe and enforce current agency policies and State and Federal Laws relating to safety in the workplace. The Plaintiff(s) alleges that Rule 8 creates a right under both State and Federal Laws. 119. PD-22 "Rule 10" : Falsification of Records " n e plo ee is required to main-tain and submit truthfull . accurate . and complete record's s required by the Agency . F lsification of records includes documents to reflect false info-r ation or the omission of aterial information. 120. Plaintiff(s) alleges that the Defendant's have falsified and/or are aware that documents pertinent to the acts alleged herein have been falsified . 121. PD-22 "Rule 20":- Violation of statutary / Court Order / Rules / Regulation / Policies". It is the employee's resposibility to know and have a clear under- 26 ( Page 22 Of Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: 29 -standing of and comply with all rules - regulations . policies - court order and statutory authority governing the operation of the Agency. Not being a are of the existance of any of the aforementioned Is Not A Defense for a Violtion of the sume". Ehiphasis Added. 122. PD-22 "Rule 23" Mistreatment Of Offender's : Mistreatment usually takes the form of Physical , but it may also include . but not be limited to . such actions as threats or unauthorized / illegal demial of privileges or entitlem-ents. Plaintiff(s) contends that on entitlement is a guarranteed tight. 123. Under the Tex.Pen.Code. 39.04 Violations of the Civil Rights of a person in custody {a) an officia; of a correctioned facilty ¦ an emplotee of a correctio-nal facility ; "commits an offense if the person intentionally : (1) denies or i pedes a person in costody in the e ercise or enjoyment of any right privilege or immunity kno ing his conduct is unlawful ; or (b) an"offensef under section (a)(1) is a class a misdemeanor THE IMMUNITY QUESTIO 124. Plaintiff(s) here by asserts these TDCJ agency Policies are Rebuttal agai-nst any Defense of Qualified I munity that the Defendant's may attempt to sub-mit. 125. Firthermore . The Defendant's are not entitled to any appir ative defense for Plaintiff (s) has Stated factually-specific enough to remove any cloak of pro-tection afforded by any immunity defense . See Elliot v-Perez 751 F.2d at 1479 Plus . The Defendant's have violated well-established Law in that they have ign-ored Tex.Civ.Prac.S Rem. Code. 101.021 and 101.029 ; Tex.Gov. Code 311.034 as well as the 1st . 8th . 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution . See Rhodes v. Chapman 101 S.Ct. 2392 . EQUITY 126. Plaintiff(s) is Entitled to Monetory and Punitive Dam ges . Declaratory . and Injunctive Relief in "LIGHT" of the fact that the Negliene . Intentional Inflic-tion of Enotioned Distress . and Cruel and Unusal Punishment is on-going in na- -ture and has been knowingly and intentionally imposed upon this Plaintiff (s) and Others. In short . he Defendant's have violated clearly establishe Statut-ory and Constitutional Right's:- See Harlon v. Fitzgerard 102 S.Ct. 2727 ; and Anderson v- Creighton 107 S.Ct. 3034 . 26 ( Page 23 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: 30 Before a Court employs its equitable power to remedy a Violation of Federal L w it must also determine that the Violation is on-going in nature or is likely to recur:- See Green v- Mansour 106 S-Ct- 423 nd Separationist v- Herman 959 -2d 1283 . Equitable remedies must be precise - so as to meet the confines of Fed.R. Civ.P--65(d) . for specificity is not merely a "Hypertechnical Requirement", it is an important procedural safe-guar . -See Seattle National Bank v. Manges 900 F.2d 295 . even if it is determine that in unctive relief is not justifie . the propriety of declaratory relief must be separately considered :-See Steffel V. Thompson 94 S-Ct. 1209 . The first question which must be addresse is the adequacy of Plaintiff (s) rem-edy at Law. In this ca 'e Plaintiff (s) has requested Monetory Damages due to the pnOgoing Intetional Violations . Inajkbrme situation this relief would more than. li ely prove to be adequate . However . this is not a normal situation- The Deiy -endant's in this matter have a (30) Thirty-year history of blatantly ignoring Court Order's . and Constitutional Right's:- See Ruiz v. Astelle 503 F- Supp. 1265 , and its progeny ; Dreyer v. Jalet 349 F- Supp. 452 ; Cruz v- Beto 603 F. 2d-1178 ; Corpus v- Estelle 551 F-2d 68 ; and Ruiz v- Johnson 37 F- Supp. 855- IN "LIGHT"of this long history injunctive relief alone be like pouring w ter on a duck's back ame is true ith Monetary Damages lone. This indictates any thing f short of the full-range of Punishment is Unlikely to Change The Defendant's beh -avior. The Defendant's will "Be urible to suggest or e onstrate that they are unlikely to revert to these same viblations. See Marrow v. Harwell 768 F-2d 619 Declaratory relief is only appropriate where there is some danger that the com-plained of har will be repeated:- see Pembroke 981 F-2d at 228. Plaint iff (s) is still in the custody of The Texas Department Of Criminl Justice . Texas Prison system ; is likely to remain so for sometime ; plus there are members of the Plaintiff(s) class to consi er ; all are still subject to the unconstitutional doudle-celling and other dispicable living conditions desribed herein that const-itute the totality of the inhumane environment he is subjected to . unfer these circumstances a eclaratory judgement is ppropriate to ensure that Plaintiff (s) is not subjected to this Cruel and Unusal Punishment Again. 127. Plaintiff(s) claims clearly show that the Defendants through thier delirate act and omissions and/or their Negligence have deprived Plintiff(s) of the minimal civilized meansures of life's necessities. The unconstitutional living conditions described herein an the attached grievances . are even worse than the Plaintiiff h s been able to describe in his complaint. he H.H. Coffield Unit is best descr- -ibed as "THIRD WORLD GHETTO", hich Plaintiff(s) as the Court to visit one Sun- ( Page 24 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: 31 - ay during the course of a sporting event in order to get the full impact of what he is subjected to on a daily basis. These conditions are longstanding a d pervas-ive and have been getting wares with the passing of time . The prison is in a -sfeate-of utter dete ioation md-ma even be beyonh-repa-ir . These-dahumane-afed-iaa-safe living conditions in their totality pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the Plaintiff(s) health and his mental and emotional well-being. Aside from the hysi-cal and/or emotional injury , Plaintiff(s) has already suffered , there is the blatant assault upon his constitutional right!s and The Defendant's egregeous bla-tant violation of State and Federal Laws . and TDCJ-CID Policies . Thus Plaintiff submits that these claims are neither delusional or fantastical and have on argua-ble basis in fact and Law:- See Gr ves v. Hampton 1 F-3d 315 . EQUITY RESTA ED 128. Plaintiff has no plan , adequate or complete remedy at Law to redress the Willful and Wanton Wrongs descibed HEREIN and the attache grievances a d the fai-lure to maintain the Status quo pending trial on the merits will result and cause Plaintiff more irreparable injury by The Defendant's unless the Court grants the injunctive relief requested HEREIN and all other and further relief , both general and special at Law and in equity to which he is justly entitled . PRAYER FOR RELIEF 130. Wherefore . Premises Considered , Plaintiff Pray's in addition to the Declat-atory -Relif of declaring that the Totality of the living Conditions at the H.H. - - Coffield Unit main building are Violative of the 8th and 14th Amendment's ; he pray's he recover cost of Court e panded ; that he be awarded exemlary / punitive damages of $ 10.000.00 each per. Defendant ; compensatory damages of $ 300.00 per ay each Defendant fo each day that he has been housed in these unconstitutional living conditions ; per and post judgement interest until paid. Plaintiff (s-) seeks the following injunctive relief (1) that the Defendant's be Ordered to immediately cease all double-celling of prisoners on the H.H. Coffield Unit ; (2) that any and all necessary repairs and maintainnce be carried-out i mediately to correct the De- -ficecies as out-lined in this complaint ; (3) The Defenda t's be Ordered to hire professional Free- orld pest-control company to co e into the H.H. Coffield Unit and Deal appropriately ith the pest infestations throughout the H.H. Coffield Unit ; (4) that The Defendant's be Ordered to Immediately a here to all state ( Page 25 Of26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: 32 and Federal Laws ; and TDCJ-CID o n plocies . of which they are now in violation of Plaintiff(s) pray's that this Court would appoint a Special Master to ensure that The Defendant's comply with all Court Orders in connection with this compla-int. Plainitiff(s) seek's Declaartory Relief , declaring that TDCJ-CID H.H. Cof-field'.Unit Administrative Remedy (i.e. Grievance Process) is futile , offer no remedy and violates the First mendment of the U.S. Conti tut ion. Finally . Plaint-iff(s) request any and all such other relief . both general and special ay law and in equity , to hich he may justly be entitled. Plaintiff request a Jury Trial. Respectfully Submiited . CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE I- TDCJ # $ 7 . do hereby declare that on this day . \f . 20i , pursuant to Cald ell v. mend 30 F.3d 1119 , 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under penalty of perjury that I have served The Defend •-ant' s with the foregoing Civil Rights Complaint . Memorandum of Law . and Jury Demands . along with the Attached grievances Exhibit (A) -# 2015184345 and E hi-bit (B) by placing the Original a (1) Copy in a sealed env-elope addressed to U.S. District Court - Clerc , David Maland - Eastern District 211 W. Ferguson Street . Tyler . Texas , 75702 , and placing in the hands of the H.H. Coffield Law library Officer tp place the correct postage and deliver to the H.H. Cof field Unit Maikroom to be Mailed through the U.S. Mail Service . Signature Of Plaintiff TDCJ ID Nubmer ( Page 26 Of 26 Page's ) Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page OFFICE 1 of 8 PageID #: 33 USE ONLY Texas Departme t of Criminal J stice Grievance #: OFFENDER GRIEVANCE FORM STEP 1 Date Received: Date Due: yto Grievance Code: l g Offender Name: Unit: 0 rhMo- lr tdcj # *3 A Housing Assignment: I? Investigator ID #: / f- 'R Extension Date: Unit where incident occurred: * f&cit& / i , r f crs Date Retd to Offender: r,rJTi-) You must try to resolve your problem with a staff member before you submit a forma! complaint. The only exception is whe appealing the results of a disciplina y hearing. Who did you talk to (name, tit What was their response? When?- / Afo What action was taken? State your rievance in the space provided. Please tate who, wh t, when, where and the disciplinary case number if a propriate - c/. UI ry/ < C'AJ b Af/j £ 7 A1 j Ti-lh/t'l A. t cJfrt /Kf T'f/eA CLkj* t j if € £/i iV \ieJ u €,fi. J iz J. ' iv'c.C fr /A xv>i th(< 2ma /uu. .- If <. ¦ -«=». J "t t . l3:? . i »/ if Vjf* f*S „ ,i / ~fa / Y dt&j&uX- k. ilul * £ i . 1 .§ -VAv V J A tfrctc i gr - V , , ; J , .. / -Jiffd Z i L- ~ f IS V, Mf AA/1 1 s et iJr A i/mdAulsj r aA . Axe. Ai jzGA rgi? (t { (/ d. f X -i .r> ' t/ .J , .2 A -li rc jtkt i xjhf y C Za/igtf l A.Si /M'nJrfs<>4/efj or /* re. .... J i ' AJ& T/\ /-£:& iJi ?Aj & yp4frH ~f'e ' s j €W €* Ay AffiA 4 j Atr A %~\aJsCJ-. JMLjdA3 ft A. h JiMrt Gt <0/4 Aj/VS'c/j-, , jEifbme. jAfj t T JUfHsMt sJ Ti u fi3%&& .otA*r < r % V- h . J ,. SAif. lm /C- . Xy T,r.tJtb rvaceJ Jt dtiA A / d < cC C A AeJZ. //ul,Wi - sIAA 1-127 Front (Revised 11-2010) YOUR SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON BACK OF THIS FORM K i (OVER) Appendix F Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 34 IS t±££ & fyi. 7 / Action Requested to resolve your Complaint. ) tti 'ikjf &JL ? /a J'- i nature: iJ/ ASOffender Signature o 7A >' ) ' -'S j A/vn >~ l - ~ J i! .; ** - Date: _ / J X-Xotn Grievance espon e: Please present only one issue per grievance. Security Staff state showers a e being conducted ¦ properly. No further action is warranted. y. Date: Signature Authority:. 7 If you are dissatisfied with the Step 1 respo se, you may submit a Ste 2 (I;1 8) to the Unit Grievanc#Investigator within 15 days from the date of the Step 1 res onse. State the reason for app al on the Step 2 Form. Returned because: *Resubmit this form when the corrections are made. l. Grievable time period has expired. . OFFICE USE ONLY 2. Submission in excess of 1 every 7 days. * Initial Submission UGI Initials: 3. Originals not submitted. * Grievance 4. Inappropriate/Excessive attachments. * 5. No documented attempt at informal resolution. * 6. No requested relief is stated. * 7. Malicious use of vulgar, indecent, or physically threatening language. * 8. The issue presented is not grievable. 9. Redundant, Refer to grievance # ; „ [~1 10. Illegible/Incomprehensible. * 11. Inappropriate. * . UGI Printed Name/Signature: Date Reed from Offender: s Date Returned to Offender: 2- -Submission UGI Initials: Grievance #: . Screening Criteria Used: Date Reed from Offender: D te Returned to Offender: 3 Submission UGI Initials: Grievance Application of the screening criteria for this grievance is not expected to adversely Affect the offender s health. #: Screening Criteria Used: - #: Screening Criteria Used: Date Reed from Offender: Medical Si nature Authority: Date Returned to Offender: 1-127 Back (Revised 11-2010) Appendi F Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 35 1 ? 2917 OFFICE USE ONLY Texas Departme t of Crimi al J stice UGI Reed Date: r~r 7~ STEP 2 Offender Name . Grievance #: OF ENDER Date Due: Unit where I cide t occurred: > Investigator ID# i aj fL f&rA irf yp AM 070 Grievance Code: . TDCJ Housin Assignment: i - Xl Unit: I „ ; HQ Reed Date: h l t < GRIEVANCE FORM mnou . t' Extension Date You must attach the completed Step 1 Grievance that has been signed by the Warden for your Step 2 appeal to be accepted. You may not appeal to Step 2 with a Step 1 that has been returned unprocessed. Give reason/or appeal (Be Specific)* I am dissatisfied with the response at Step 1 because. J/ l M iS X* 4 (. jail - '~r g djiY €fc .. daMfeAlsArrow' Ar Z/iJ JA/Jt-C f Hi&A/iv' f 7 id WL\ dMe ! f if Me, A 2 Cc UJ dW>_ t ;€/C4// Cf € /j ./fZjijr Sm q/m F if IPWM M M/j/fYaJ MQ, efeMujcw J X h/ J/fZ l A. luiUS fiff CMY />ajX .* - p JcJ j X t v X my <£isi. X t <-£ <. ttPLJd V / 1-128 Front (Revised 11-2010) g>. I Mi ei/. €CrcJ.6,f, ,J jL '"'eSc-cffd' € rer . A diUM AAi ci //J/JPfJjaA f YOUR SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON BACK OF THIS FORM A (OVER) Appendix G Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 36 Date: Offender Signature: Cls tX Grievance Response: A review of your Step I Grievance has been conducted and the Coff eld Unit receved waiver from the American Correctional Association (ACA) as the Unit was built prior to the 1986 prototype facilities. No further cnon is w rranted.. Signature A thority: Date: / ~~j OFFICE USE ONLY Returned because: *Resubmit this form when corrections are made. Initial Submission CGO Initials: 1. Grievable time period has expired. CD 2. liiegible/lncomprehensible. * Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: (check one) Screened Improperly Submitted C 3. Originals not sub itted. * Comments: CD 4. Inappropriate/Excessive attachments.* CD 5. Malicious u e of vulgar, indecent, or physically threatenin language. CD 6. Inappropriate.* Date 2 et ed to Offender: Submission CGO Initials: Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: (check one) Screened _ Improperly Submitted Com ents: CGO Staff Signature: Date Retu ed to Offender: y8 Submi sion CGO Initials: Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: (check one) Screened Improperly S bmitted Comments: Date Retu ed to Offender: 1-128 Back (Revised 11-2010) Appendi G Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 37 Texas Department of Criminal J stice Bryan Collier Executive Director August 21, 2017 Artis Armour # 00326387 2661 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, TX 75884 Re: Artis Armour TDCJ #00326387 v. TDCJ Date of Incident: August 11, 2017 Dear Mr. Armour: Please accept this letter as acknowledgment of receipt for your correspondence received by this office on August 18, 2017. Acknowledgment of your correspondence constitutes no admission of liability. We will contact you if additional information is needed or as soon as a determination has been made as to whether your claim should be paid. Sincerely, Office of the General Counsel Texas Department of Cri inal Justice Our mission is to provide p blic safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders i to society, and assist victims of crime. Office of the General Counsel Sharon Felfe Howell, General Counsel - sharon.howell@tdcj.texas.gov P.O. Box 13084 Capitol Station P.O. Box 4004 Austin, Texas 78711-3084 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004 P one (512) 463-9899, FAX (512) 936-2159 Phone (936) 437-6700, FAX (936) 437-6994 www.tdcj.state.te as.gov Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 38 Texas Department of Criminal Justice Bryan Collier Executive Director September 11, 2017 3(i< Of ( -/A Coffield Unit Artie rmour, TDCJ #326387 2661 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, XX 75884 Re: Artie Armour, TDCJ #326387. Date of Incident: August 11, 2017 to Present Day Dear Mr. Armour, We regret to infor you that we must deny your personal injury claim. The Texas Tort Claims Act Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows the state to pay for personal injury only under limited conditions. Otherwise, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has no authority for payment of personal injury claims. The law is as follows: §101.021, Governmental Liability A governmental unit in the state is liable for: (1) property damage, personal injury, and death proximately caused by the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if: (A) the property damage, personal injury, or death arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motor-driven equipment; and (B) the employee would be personally liable to the claimant according to Texas law; and (2) personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use of tangible personal or real property if the gcverniiiental unit woul Based upon the infor ation presented, the TDCJ has no liability for the incident under the TTCA. There is no evidence that you suffered any injuries as a result of the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of any agency employee acting within his scope of employment. Sincerely, Assistant General Counsel Our mission is to provide public safety, promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime. Office of the General Counsel Sharon Felfe Howell, General Counsel - sharon.ho ell@tdcj .state.tx.us P.O. Box 13084 Capitol Station P.O. Box 4004 Austin, Texas 78711-3084 Huntsville, Texas 77342-4004 Phone (512) 463-9693, FAX (512) 936-2159 Phone (936) 437-6698, FAX (936) 437-6994 www.tdcj .state.tx.us P #: i J 39 ijts Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 7 of 8 PageID A Texas Dep rtment of Criminal Justice STEP 2 Offender Name: f Grievance #: /: UGI Reed Date: jaMi OFFENDER GRIEVANCE FORM !W HQ Reed Date: Date Due: fe TDCJ # Unit: d OFFICE USE ONLY 'SAh- - Grievance Code: Housiitg Assignment:, fi m H y Investigator H>#: Extension Date: Unit where incident occurred: You must attach the completed Step 1 Grievance that has been signed by the Warden for your Step 2 appeal to be accepted. You may not appeal to Step 2 with a Step 1 that has been returned unprocessed. Give rea on for aopeal (Be Specific). / am dissatisfied with the response at Step l becaus ... . _ 14Y Li CdM. fa w/p r )MP /j>Arj w Ar kkfi as A/GTrcF CY? Z&tA AjdV r /*\aur k u.ted / jt)os< , _ - i- lrsfe X ¥HJ / jf uhJZ. M&stJ Vvr, /k. aMeej s '// l r /k/h a. 'osY tS a A'oG ~ A/astS MeWcutn /)er „ seA - S Pcusl . , 6 / r l.aa 'fWa C* Cc ( y f> a/ o /a ' fa rA rA l???l a> v f z kly s?Ai&M esjt / t. nerr/rf a dfdeJ- isJLej/> ~f }f )< &ks / tUM* tidAj lduteJ CmJii 2Z*/uf crifj f t Zr jf /J k WjA S' J /Atoi c jQ P fh C i d Pfa ; A.aus c? 7 11 e Xrrf cu eM. u)/i c*t %» r J _ /. / rea TaJ jQ A vrSdA t S ?i/ ts T~ A L /&G¥ f€--/We I O IfdUt s Oi lsz yi P &j r/VCi 128 Front (Revised 11-2010) YOUR SIGNATURE IS REQUBRED ON BACK OF TmSWRM / (OVER) Appendix G Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-2 Filed 10/09/18 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 40 Grievance Response: An investig tion of your Step I grievance w s conducted and you were ppropriately advised at the Unit level. No furt er action is w rranted. Signature Authority: i Date: / 1 OFFICE USE ONLY Returned because: * Res bmit this form when corrections a e made. Initial Submission CGO Initials: Gl 1. Grievable time period has expired. 2. Illegible/Incomprehensible.* Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: (check one) Screened Improperly Submitted C 3. Ori inals not submitted. * Comments: [ 4. Inappropriate/Excessive attachments.* n 5. Malicious use of vulgar, indecent, or physically threatening lan uage. D 6. Inappropriate.* Date Retu 2 ed to Offender: Submission CGO Initials: Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: check one) Screened Improperly Submitted Comments: CGO Staff Signature: Date Returned to Offender:1 yd Submission CGO Initials: Date UGI Reed: Date CGO Reed: (check one) Screened Improperly Submitte Comments: Date Returned to Offender: 1-128 Back (Revised 11-2010) Appendix G Case 6:18-cv-00535-RWS-JDL Document 1-3 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 41 jisfcfcst( ,/ccii U .Jb;}tn auft- sAr X tJ j'u-a S r Sf'- ly/ar 'l-Wfo jJ), Ddf 3> XOI* : E©ba c:q OCT e 201 ' d/\/*l ix oj t a/ Arrtoujc's "Z ) / f I t c&x Zllu i f/t S' ip/ J A/ j f (l jt Aic/HoiP Q/ o i k " / / o J /iJ-S//f/lf/ /( /¦ QAJ &ifs{ /a s f<£i3/v>~t ct/il o / aJ, fl€L