Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 50 KARL ROGERS and JAMES IARDINA IIARBDR HOSPITAL 3001 S. HANOVER STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21225 and VINCENT BERRY DORSEY RUN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2020 TOULSON ROAD IE5 SUP, MARYLAND 20794 and LARRY COLEMAN DORSEY RUN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2020 TOULSON ROAD JESSUP, MARYLAND 20794 and IOIIN FISI-IBACK DORSEY RUN CORRECTIONAL FACII 2020 TOULSON ROAD AND 20794 and ERIC ANDRE YOUNG DORSEY RUN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 2020 SON ROAD MARYLAND 20794 Plainfiffs v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ROBERT L. GREEN OI WAYNE IAMA ACUFF 1m". AUG 30 AH 9136 CIVIL CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY CASE O. M-afi-m'o'fiib Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 50 RICHARD GRAHAM 29H AUG SB EH 9: 36 CAROLYN 1. SCRUGGS CASEY CAMPBELL CWIL SERVE ON: Michael oi Doyle, Assistant Atterney General Deputy Counsel . . 00c?31 80 Office of the Attorney General 0? Depaflmenl of Public Safety and Correctional Services 200 Saint qu1 Place Baltimore, Maryland 21202 and STEPHEN T. MOYER -- and DAYENA COKCORAN Defendants r. a >e a. . COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs Karl Rogers, James Jardina, Larry Coleman, Vincent Berry, John Fishback, and Eric Andre Young ("Plaintiffs"), hy rheir undersigncd counsel, hereby file Ihis Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants Maryland Department ofPuhlic Safety and Corleclional Services, Ruben Green, Stephen Meyer, 0. Wayne Hill, Dayena Careeran, Jama Acuff, Casey Campbell, Rlchard J. Graham, Jr., and Carolyn J. Scluggs (celleelively \he "Defendants"), and state: in suppon: . . . . . . ?Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 50 INTRODUCTION The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services consistently violates the laws protecting prisoners with disabilities and perceived disabilities. . These ongoing violations ekelude Maryland prisoners from numerous programs, services, and activities, and cause them to suffer the humiliation, indignity, inhumanity, and dif?culties that accompany such exclusion. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress widespread pattern and practice of statutory and constitutional violations against prisoners with disabilities. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. - Plaintiffs bring this action to. challenge the acts and omissions of and its agents and employees, for; (1) discriminating against them because they are disabled and/or because of a perceived disability; (2) failing to properly make available and administer the administrative grievance process; (3) subjecting Plaintiffs to conditions of con?nement that have caused, and continue to create a substantial risk of harm; and (4) depriving Plaintiffs of the right I to equally participate in and bene?t from programs, services, and activities. I 2. The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution along with the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12112 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (?Section 504?), 29 U.S.C. 794, require Defendants to (1) provide the necessary and reasonable modi?cations and ancillary aids and services that would allow Plaintiffs to freely and safely access facilities, and (2) ensure that quali?ed prisoners with disabilities have the right to equally participate in and bene?t from prison programs, services, and activities. BACKGROUND 3. Plaintiffs Karl Rogers, DOC ID #469800, James Iardina, DOC ID #418567, Larry Coleman, DOC ID #451342, Vincent Berry, DOC ID #455176 (hereinafter the ?Whe'elchair Plaintiffs?), are wheelchair-bound prisoners currently or formerly residing at the Dorsey Run . .. .. .. Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 50 Correctional Facility prison facility?which is located at 2020 Toulson Road, Jessup, Maryland 20794. I i i 4. Plaintiffs John Fishback, DOC ID #304325 and Eric Andre Young, DOC ID #469775 (hereinafter the ?Non?Wheelchair Plaintiffs?), are prisoners with disabilities or perceived disabilities who are currently housed at 5. places prisoners at DRCF when those prisoners have medical conditions thatrequire more intensive care than can be provided in a general population setting at other institutions. However, Defendants deny (or denied) Plaintiffs access to vital safety equipment and features necessary for Plaintiffs to safely reside in DRCF and take advantage 'of programs, services, and activities. I I - 6. Defendants have harmed and continue to harm Plaintiffs by failing to make the necessary and reasonable accommodations and modi?cations, and by failing to provide ancillary aids and services that would allow Plaintiffs to freely and safely access facilities, services, provide to the Plaintiffs: (1) the ADA-required accommodations in bathroom and shower facilities, requiring Plaintiffs to hop in and out of the showers on wet floors, or teeter preCariously on plastic chairs in the showers because there are no handicap benches or shower hoses; (2) ADA-- required accommodations in' housing units, including bed rails, grab bars, and accessible shelving and storage; (3) ADA?required furniture and other equipmentsuitable to accommodate Plaintiffs? disabilities; (4) ADA-required accommodations for Wheelchair-bound individuals to allow Plaintiffs to access the entire facility, such as properly graded ramps, sidewalks, and pass? through areas in hallways; (5) access to work release programs solely because 0f Plaintiffs? disabilities; (6) ADA?compliant housing accommodations with proper disabled prisoner?to?bed ratios; and (7) access to the same employment opportunities within DP SCS, resulting in Plaintiffs l4]- Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19. Page 5 of 50 being unable to earn diminution of con?nement credits in the same manner as similarly situated non-disabled individuals incarcerated at DRCF and within As a? result, Plaintiffs are exposed to a substantial risk of injury on a daily basis. Indeed, Plaintiffs have sustained personal injuries because of Defendants failures to provide necessary and reasonable accommodations. Further, these ongoing failures embarrass, dehumanize, andd?egrade Plaintiffs. - 7 Defendants have also harmed and continue to harm Plaintiffs by not affording them an opportunity to equal enjoyment of the bene?ts and Opportunities available to the non-disabled prisoner population. 'For example, Plaintiffs. are unable to participate in valuable activities, like the work release program. Consequently, Plaintiffs are unable to earn wages and gain valuable job experience, both of which are available to non?disabled inmates. Plaintiffs also risk violating the terms of their parole because they are unable to satisfy the work release conditions therein. Moreover, Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs? disabilities in. the administration of various work programs, job training, and other ancillary bene?ts that allow non- disabled prisoners to receive vocational training, earn wages, and'obtain credits towards their release. As a result, Plaintiffs are at a substantial ?nancial and educational disadvantage, both during their respective terms of con?nement. and upon release, .when compared to their non- disabled counterparts. 8. Defendants have denied Plaintiffs: their due process rights. Defendants have failed to establish minimum mandatory standards for administrative complaints and grievances as I required by Md. Code, Corr. Servs. 8?103, and Md. Code Regs. 12.14,04.05, violating Plaintiffs? Fourteenth Amendment rights to access the courts. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys? .. fees and costs, and any other available relief. Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 6 of 50 PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Karl Rogers, formerly #469800, was a prisoner committed to the custody I of, the Mr. Rogers, a single-leg amputee,-is a wheelchair-bound individual and is a ?quali?ed individual with a disahility? as de?ned in-42 U.S.C. 12131(2). Mr. Rogers was released from custody in May'2019. During his incarceration with Mr. Rogers . was housed at the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classi?cation Center in Baltimore, and at DRCF. Mr. Rogers clurently resides in Ocean City, Maryland. 1 l. Plaintiff James ardina, formerly #418567, was a prisoner committed to the custody of the DP SCS. Mr. ardin'a is a wheelchair?bound individual and is a ?quali?ed individual with a disability? as de?ned in 42 U.S.C. 12131(2). Mr. Jardina was mysteriously released from custody in June 2019, after conceded that it could not accommodate Mr. ardina?s ongoing and serious medical needs. During his incarceration with Mr. Jardina was housed. I at several facilities, including the Western Correctional Institution and DRCF. Mr. ardina currently resides in Baltimore, Maryland. I i I 12. Plaintiff Larry Coleman, #451342, at all times relevant to this action, was and is a prisoner committed to the custody of the Mr. coleman is a wheelchair?bound individual and is a ?quali?ed'individual with a disability? as de?ned in 42 U.S.C. 12131(2). During. his incarceration with DP SCS, Mr. Coleman has been housed at several facilities including . WCI and DRCF. Mr. Coleman currently resides at DRCF. 13. Plaintiff Vincent Berry, #455176, at all times relevant to. this action, was and is a prisoner committed to the custody; of the and assigned to DRCF. Mr. Berry 'is a wheelchair-bound individual and is a ?quali?ed individual with a disability? as de?ned in 42. U.S.C. 12131(2). Mr. Berry currently resides at DRCF. .[51 ICase Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 7 of 50 14. Plaintiff John Fishback, #3 04325, at all times relevant to this action, was and is a prisoner committed to the custody of the Mr. Fishback suffers from bipolar disorder and chronic pain and is a ??quali?ed individual with a disability? as defined in 42 1213 During his incarceration with ?Mr. ishback has been housed at several facilities including WCI and Mr. Fishback currently resides at DRCF. I 15. Plaintiff Eric Andre Young, #469775, at all times relevant to this action, was and is a prisoner committed to the custody of the Mr. Young was diagnosed with asthma as a child and is a ?quali?ed individual with a disability? as de?ned in 42 12131(2). Young currently resides at DRCF. ?16. Defendant Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services is established as a principal department of the State of Maryland pursuant to Maryland Code, Correctional Services 2-101. The Maryland Division-of Corrections is a unit of the Department, CSA 2-201, organized to incarcerate certain criminal defendants sentenced by Maryland courts. The DOC is tasked with operating and overseeing Maryland?s twenty-four (24) state prison facilities, including DRCF, and WCI. 17. Defendant Robert L. Green is the current Secretary of The Secretary of is the primary administrator of the Department and is responsible to the Governor. . CSA 2?102._ Defendant Green is aware of policies and practices regarding disabled prisoners. Mr. Green is also knowledgeable of the requirements of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 50.4 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated within Defendant Green is named in this action in his individual and of?cial capacities. 18. Defendant Stephen T. Moyer is the former Secretary of holding that position from 2015 through 2019: As Secretary, Mr. Moyer was aware of policies and [71 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 8 of 50 practices regardingIdisabled?prisoners. Mr. Meyer is also knowledgeable of the requirements of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated within DP SCS. Defendant Moyer is named in this action in his individual and of?cial capacities; I 19. Defendant 0. Wayne Hill is the Acting Commissioner of Corrections 'at DOC (the The Commissioner is responsible for the administration of and is responsible to the Secretary of and the Governor for the supervision of prisoners and correctional staff. CSA 3-203. et seq. The Commissioner?s reSponsibilities also include 1esponding to appeals of complaints and g1ievances brought by individuals 1n the Department 3 . custody. As the Commissionei, Mr. Hill IS aware of and DOC policies and practices regarding prisoners,- including policies and practices regarding wheelchair?bound prisoners and those with other_disabilities.- The Commissioner is also aware of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated at DRCF. Defendant Hill is named in this aetion in his individual and of?cial capaCities. 20. Defendant Dayena Corcoran is the former Commissioner of CorreCtions at DOC. As Commission, Ms. Corcoran responsibilities also include responding to appeals of complaints and grievances brought by individuals in the Department?s custody. As Commissioner, Ms. Corcoran was aWare of and DOC policies and practices regarding prisoners, including policies and practices'regarding wheelchair-bound prisoners and those with other disabilities or perceived disabilities. As Commissioner, Ms._ Corcoran was also aware of federal law, including .the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and. Section '504 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated at DRCF. Defendant Corcoran is named in this action in her individual and of?cial capacities. Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 9 of 50 21. Defendant lama Acuff is the warden of DRCF and is responsible for the governance, discipline, and policies of that institution. CSA 3?21 1. In addition, Warden Acuff is responsible for the enforcement of regulations and directives. Warden Acuff is the legal I custodian of all individuals incarcerated at DRCF and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. Warden Acuff is aware of policies and practices regarding prisoners, including policies and practices regarding wheelchair-bound prisoners and those with other disabilities or perceived disabilities. Warden Acuff is also aware of federal law, including the . . Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated at DRCF. Warden Acuff is aware of the complaints brought by wheelchair-bound prisoners and prisoners with other disabilities at DRCF regarding failure to properly establish and or follow proper administrative grievance procedures, as well. as Plaintiffs? complaints regarding safety concerns at inadequate facilities and inaccessible programming. Defendant Acuff is named in this action in her individual .. and capacities I 22. Defendant Casey Campbell is Itheformer warden at DRCF. In that role, lVlr. Campbell dwas responsible for the governance, disCipline, and policies of that institution. CSA 3-211. In addition, Mr. Campbell was re3ponsible for the enforcement of regulations and directives. As warden, Mr. Campbell was the legal custodian of all individuals incarcerated at. DRCF and was reSponsible for their safe, sec'ure, and. humane treatment. As warden, Mr. Campbell was aware of DPS policies and practices regarding prisoners, including policies and practices . regarding wheelchair?bound prisoners and those with other disabilities or perceived disabilities. As warden, Mr. Campbell was also aware of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 as they pertain to the treatment Of individuals incarcerated at DRCF. As warden, Mr. Campbell was aware of the Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 10 of 50 complaints brought by wheelchair-bound prisoners and prisoners with other disabilities at DRCF - regarding failure to properly establish. and or follow proper administrative grievance procedures, as well as Plaintiffs? complaints regarding safety concerns at inadequate facilities and inaccessible programming. Defendant Campbell is namedin this action-in his individual and of?cial capacities. - 23. Defendant Richard J. Graham, Jr. is the warden at WCI and is responsible for the governance, discipline, and policies of that institution. 211. In addition, Warden Graham I is responsible for the enforcement of DPS CS regulations and directives. Warden Graham 15 the legal custodian of all individuals incarcerated at WCI and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. Warden Graham is aware of policies and practices regarding prisoners, including-policies and practices regarding wheelchair?bound prisoners and those-with other disabilities or perceived disabilities. Warden Graham is also aware of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the. United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section i-?r =vi' a of the cOmplaints brought by wheelchair?bound prisoners and prisoners with other disabilities at WCI regarding failure to properly establish and or follow proper administrative grievance procedures, as well as Plaintiffs? complaints regarding safety concerns at inadequate facilities and inaccessible programming. Defendant Graham is named in this action in his- individual and official capacities. 24. Defendant Carolyn J. Scruggs is the warden of and is responsible for the governance, discipline, and policies of that institution. CSA 3-211. In addition, Warden Scruggs is responsible for the enforcement of regulations and directives. Warden Scruggs is the legal custodian-of all individuals incarcerated at and is responsible for their safe, Secure, and humane treatment. Warden Scruggs is aware of policies and practices regarding [10] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 11 of 50 prisoners, including policies and practices regarding wheelchair-bound prisoners and those with. other disabilities or perceived disabilities. Warden Scruggs is also aware of federal law, including the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the ADA, and Section 504 as they pertain to the treatment of individuals incarcerated at ?Warden Scruggs is aware of the complaints brought by wheelchair-bound prisoners and prisoners with other disabilities at regarding failure to properly establish and or follow prOper administrative- grievance procedures, as well as-Plaintiffs? complaints regarding safety Concerns at inadequate facilities and inaccessible programming. Defendant Scruggs is named in this action in her individualvand of?cial capacities. . JURISDICTION ANI) VENUE '25. This Court has jurisdiction over the- above?captioned Defendants, pursuant to Maryland Code, Courts Judicial Proceedings 6?1102 and 6-103, as through their acts, Defendants caused the tortious and constitutional injuries herein described in the State of I Maryland, and because they transact business in the State of Maryland, contract to'perform . services in. the State of Maryland, and through their acts and the acts of their agents, caused the tortious and constitutional injuries herein described. .26. Venue is proper in Baltimore City, pursuant to CJP 6-201 as'Defendant' carries on regular business therein, and because part of the harms alleged herein arose in Baltimore City. 27. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to CJP 1- 504 and 4?401, as the amount in controversy exceeds Thirty Thousand Dollars [11] I 28. Case Documentz Filed 10/23/19 Page 12 of, 50 STATEMENT OF FACTS Systemic Violations of Laws Protecting People With Disabilities systematically violates the laws protecting persons with disabilities and perceived disabilities in its custody. This includes but is not limited to prisoners who are blind, deaf, hard of hearing, and have mobility impairments, This also extends to prisoners who DP SCS perceives as disabled, but are not. has violated, and continues to violate, the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Eighth Amendment, Due. Process Clause, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights in the following ways. This is not an exhaustive list: a. Failure to maintain wheelchair accessible facilities; b. Failure toprovide and maintain wheelchairs and assistants; 0. Failure to allow and maintain prosthetic devices; i d. Exclusion from jobs, and programs; - I e. Engaging in retaliation and interference against prisoners who are disabled and/or who I ?le grievances about noncompliant activities; 1 f, Refusing to answer meritorious grievances and complaints; g. Failure to train personnel and private contractors on the requirements of federal disability laws; h. - Failure to properly assign prisoners to jobs, programs, and other services based on i their commitment status and security level; and i i. Failure to provide adequate medical treatment and devices to prisoners with disabilities; . j. Failure to provide addiction treatment counseling; i Failure to provide medication withdrawal counseling or programming; [12] I Case Document2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 13 of 50 1. Failure to engage competent medical service providers to oversee and administer the healthcare needs of prisoners committed to the. custody of m. Failure to provide ADA-compliant housing accomniodations with proper prisoner-t0- bed ratios; and n. Failure to provide safe and habitable living environments for disabled individuals by overcrowding housing facilities, improperly ventilating and cooling its housing units, and by failing to lteep the housing units free from hazards that interfere with disabled I I prisoners? abilities to safely move about the institution. 29. Plaintiffs are each qualified individuals with a disability, in that they, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices; the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers; or the provision of auxiliary-aids. and services; meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services of the participation in programs or activities provided by 30, knows that the Plaintiffs are quali?ed individuals with disabilities. 31. All Plaintiffs have, by reason of their disability, been excluded from participation or have been denied the bene?ts of services, programs, or activities, or have been subjected to discrimination by I I 32. The events described herein are not isolated incidents; they are but some examples of DPS failure to comply with the laws protecting individuals with disabilities. 33. These violations will continue unless enjoined by this Court. Prisoners With 'Mobility Impairments mm 34. Mr. Rogers was incarcerated in the between 2018 and 20.19, and spent time at both and DRCF. Mr. Rogers is a single-leg amputee and requires a prosthetic or other [13] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 "Page 14 of 50 asSistive devices to ambulate. This physical impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities, including but not limited to walking. Upon his commitment to in December 2018, Mr. Rogers was refused a prosthetic or wheelchair and was'instead offered forearm crutches for mobility. Ultimately, provided Mr. Rogers with a wheelchair nearly two months after he was committed to custody. . 35. Failure, to Provide and Maintain Wheelchairs and Assistants. Mr. Rogers resided in the Harford County Detention Center as'he awaited sentencing and was provided a wheelchair in that facility. Upon arriving at in December 2018, and denied Mr. Rogers the ability to enter that. institution with a wheelchair and instead offered him forearm crutches. On or about January 3, 2019, Mr. Rogers fell in the shower facilities at does not have handicapped accommodations whatsoever. For example, does not have handicapped showers, handrails, 'anti?slip-Iguards, or shower chairs for disabled prisoners, like Mr. Rogers. Consequently, staff forced Mr. Rogers forearm crutches or any other assistive devices into the shower with him, deSpite the patent risk of harm. Ultimately and after several weeks of this practice, Mr. Rogers slipped and fell as he hopped out of the shower and seriously injured his right shoulder. Mr. Rogers raised concerns'to staff many times before his fall, but those complaints were ignored. 36. After falling, Mr. Rogers ?led a formal grievance with the warden of complaining of the lack of handicap accessibility, both in the shower areas and elsewhere in the institution, including in his assigned cell. This grievance went unanswered. 37. Within days of this fall, transferred Mr. Rogers from to DRCF, which represented to be afully ADA?compliant facility. At DRCF, staff again refused to provide Mr. Rogers with a prosthetic, but did request that-a wheelchair be provided to Mr. Rogers. [14] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 15 of 50 38. Shortly after his arrival at DRCF, Mr. Rogers? forearm crutches broke in front of a sergeant. That sergeant contacted a lieutenant who then asked the medical, department'to provide Mr. Rogers with new crutches. The sergeant also asked the medical department for an update on the status of Mr. Rogers? wheelchair. 39. After approximately one week?during which time Mr. Rogers had to borrow another prisoner? wheelchair to access food, medical services, and the lavatory, plovided Mr. Rogers with a wheelchair. This wheelchair however, was only designed for indoor use. . However, facilities required Mr. Rogers to travel outside of his housing unit to access every basic service, like food, medication, and the library. 40. The wheelchair routinely broke and needed maintenance. For .- example, the hardware that seemed the brakes to the wheelchair came loose and made slowing or stopping the wheelchair very difficult. Mr. Rogers could not tighten the hardware on his own, which made traveling in the wheelchair hazardous. DRCF also failed to provide Mr. Rogers with a ?p11 313?? a p,igun rdes (mated to assist and push a wheelchair?bound prisoner. Mr. Rogers advised the medical department of these concerns and the medical staff stated that they had informed maintenance staff. However, neither maintenance staff nor DRCF medical staff ever responded to this concern. Mr. Rogers ultimately had to rely on friendly 1naintenanceworkers?- when he could ?nd them?to repair his wheelchair. I ?4l. During his time at DRCF, Mr. Rogers saw several old or broken wheelchairs on the prison grounds being used by other prisoners. I 42. Importantly, Mr. Rogers does not require a wheelchair to ambulate, but forced Mr. Rogers to remain wheelchair-bound for his entire stay at DRCF by failing to provide him with a prosthetic or working crutches. [15] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 16 of 50 43.? Failure to Maintain Wheelchair Accessible Facilities. institutions are not wheelchair accessible, despite DP SCS claims to the contrary. Upon his?arrival at DRCF and after ?nally provided Mr. Rogers with awheelchair, he had signi?cant dif?culty with even the most basic activities of daily living because of lack of handicap accessibility. 44. . On or about March .31, 2019, Mr. Rogers ?led a formal grievance at DRCF, complaining of insuf?cient and non?ADA compliant housing accommodations, shower and toilet facilities, i accessible common areas, recreational activities and opportunities, dining accommodations, and visiting room accommodations. Mr. Rogers noted in his grievance that these - complaints posed a continued threat to his health, safety, and welfare. I 45. Speci?cally, Mr. Rogers complained that: there was no shower hose, grab rails, or adjustable shower seats in shower facilities; the designated handicapped toilet was not the appropriate height, (0) the handicapped housing unit did not have enough Space between the beds for wheelchair-bound prisoners to safely navigate; doorways were not cut wide enough . - . reeks making wheelchair access impossible; the tables in the dining and visiting rooms were i too low and not handicap accessible; the handicap housing unit contained many more wheelchair?bound prisoners than its design safely allowed twenty?four- prisoners in the 1 housing unit, twenty of Whom were con?ned to wheelchairs); and there was only one handicap accessible bathroom for approximately sixty prisoners, both handicapped and otherwise. 46. Failure to Provide Jobs and Other Programming. refused to provide a job to Mr. Rogers for his entire term of con?nement, despite his being eligible and medically cleared for same. Mr. Rogers repeatedly requested that DRCF case managers provide him with a job so that he could earn money, earn diminution credits, and occupy his time with substantive work like [16] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 17 of 50 non-disabled prisoners at DRCF. IInstead, Mr. Rogers was forced to sit idle each day for several months, while his nonedisabled peers enjoyed the bene?ts of prisoner job assignments. 47. I Engagementin Retaliation and Interference. Mr. Rogers and the other prisoners - who use wheelchairs have been subjected to unfair harassment that interferes with their equal access to programs, services, and activities. For instance, the ARP coordinator at DRCF I expressly told Mr. Rogers to stop ?ling grievances about the facility 5 ADA noncompliance or else he would be punished. I '48. IFnilure to Reinstate Health Insurance Upon Release. Prior to his commitment, Mr. Rogers had Medicare insurance coverage for both medical and hospitaliiation I services. cancelled Mr. Rogers? Medicare medical coverage upon his commitment because DPSC has a policy of enrolling incoming prisoners in the state Medicaid program. Upon Mr. Rogers? release, however, failed to ensure that his Medicare medical coverage was reinstated. competitive bidding process, a private, for-pro?t company with which contracts to render medical care and services at State prisons, including DRCF, and WCI. This contractual - arrangement is based on ?capitated ?nancing,? Whereby the medical contractoi sets up a pricing schedule that ?uctuates based on the average headcount of all prisoners committed to DP SCS. Under this capitated ?nancing scheme, the contractor bears the full risk that health care costs. may exceed the per. prisoner price dictated by the pricing schedule in the contract. The medical contractor, using the capitated system receives a ?xed amount of?money per prisoner, and - its pro?t increases as the co st of care it provides to the prisoners decreases, regardless of how much or. how little care is providedto the prisoners. [17] Case Document2 Filed-10/23/19 Page 18 of 50 50. promulgates standard operating procedures for the provision of health care within its prisons, including those prisons, like DRCF, and WCI, where health care services are rendered by private contractors. The private contractors have their own procedures, but must also follow procedures. . 51. The warden at any prison a the'highest ranking of?cial at the facility. The warden has authority over all staff, including medical personnel. Even where there is a private medical contractor, the warden remains ultimately responsible fer the operation of the facility, including health care treatment and security. DP SCS determines I the medical accommodations prisoners may receive, and medical staff have no authority to override DP SCS criteria. I I 52. Importantly here, DP SCS requires its private medical contractors to screen all incoming prisonersfor Medicaid eligibility and to apply for Medicaid benefits where available. incentivizes its private medical contractors by 'offering them a percentage of any Medicaid reimbursements for medical care while committed to custody. . 53. DPS CS, through its agent and private medical contractor, determined that Mr. Rogers was Medicaid-eligible upon his commitment to DP SCS confinement. enrolled Mr. Rogers in the?Medicaid program to ensure that and/or its private medical contractOr was reimbursed for any medical services rendered to Mr. Rogers during his term" of con?nement. This enrollment occurred without Mr. Rogers? knowledge or consent. This enrollment canceled, Mr. Rogers? Medicare eligibility and canse?d MediCare to discontinue his medical coverage. Upon his release, DP SCS failed to ensure that Mr. Rogers? Medicare coverage was reinstated, and also failed- to refer Mr. Rogers to a regional social work supervisor for assistance with reinstating the Medicare coverage. [18] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 19 of 50 54. failures compounded Mr. Rogers? already serious medical issues in several meaningful ways. First, Mr. Rogers was left without any health insurance upon release: Second, Mr. Rogers could not seek medical attention for his severely injured right shoulder, which he sustained when he fell in the shower. Not only did fail to provide any meaningful medical care to Mr.- Rogers for thisinjury during-his con?nement, but also . ensured that Mr. Rogers could not seek medical care upon his release without paying for same out of his own pocket. I 55. Rogers repeatedly asked for assistance with this issue, but was denied each time.- '1 In fact, Mr. Rogers brought this issue to the attention of his case manager, social worker, and DRCF medical staff prior to his release, but each refused to provide any assistance. 56. Mr. Rogers ultimately purchased private health insurance, at a cost of $170.00 per month, because being without health coverage is. not an option for Mr. Rogers. James Jardina 57. James ardina was incarcerated in from approximately 2015 through 2019, until his mysterious-release in June 2019. On information and belief, released Mr. Jardina after his repeated grievances and complaints concerning. DPS CS and failure to properly . accommodate his disability. As a result-of medical Complications, Mr. Jardina is. con?ned to a wheelchair. He relies on an?ileostomy bag to relieve himself. and requires ongoing medical care for his conditions. His mobility issues substantially limit several major life activities, including but not limited to walking and caring for himself. Mr. ardina? disabilities are clearly documented in his medical and administrative records maintained by has full knowledge that Mr.'Jardina is disabled and requires accommodations. I 58: Failure to Maintain Wheelchair Accessible Facilities. Mr. Jardinaresided in at least two facilities, WCI and DRCF. Each facility has features that are inaccessible to [191 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 20 of 50 wheelchair users. WCI is almost entirely inaccessible to a wheelchair?bound individual. DRCF, as described'herein, is similarly inaccessible. 59. Mr. Jardina ?led numerous grievances with the wardens of and DRCF, and sent additional complaints to concerning the inaccessibility of WCI and DRCF. 60. For example, on or about May 30, 2017, Mr. Jardina ?led a formal grievance with former warden, Casey Campbell, complaining failed to accommodate his needs by: maintaining a noncompliant grading on its walkways mailing it dif?Cult to navigate in his wheelchair; constructing hallways that are too narrow; failing to install grab bars or hand rails in his bunk; maintaining noncompliant bathroom and shower facilities; refusing him access to case management services'and other pro gramming; refusing him access to work release jobs; and refusing him access to ?offsite? family visits for up to forty-eight hours, as was offered to non-disabled prisoners. I i 61. Onlor about May 15, 2017, former warden Campbell responded to Mr. Jardina?s gjevunge in iwriting and dismissed it without merit. Mr. Campbell stated that DRCF is ?well within ?bed rails and/or grab bars on the beds are not an ADA requirement,? that DRCF does not exceed the ratio of prisoners to handicap bathrooms, that the DRCF showers do not require a shower h0se,'that DRCF was net obligated to place a certain size bench in the handicap shower, and that Mr. Jardina?s claims concerning disabled prisoner?s-being denied jobs was unsubstantiated. I I 62. During his time at WCI and DRCF, Mr. ardina was not afforded any privacy when using the handicapped shower stall, This stall is in the plain View of other prisoners and guards and there is no privacy screen. 63. The dining halls at WCI and DRCF have insuf?cient seating for-wheelchair users. Prisoners with disabilities must wait, sometimes outside without cover, until a seat is available for [20] Case Document 2 . Filed 10/23/19 Page 21 of 50 their wheelchair. Once inside, a wheelchair?bound prisoner cannot pull him or herself all the way . up to a. table because the tables are not designed to accommodate wheelchairs. Prisoners with . disabilities must wait longer to eat than able-bodied prisoners. 64. At IWCI and DRCF, Mr. ardina was excluded from activities on the yard. The facilities offer only a' cement sidewalk or track with a weight pit area in the middle. The walking . track IS sloped and dif?cult for a wheelchair? bound p1isoner to safely navigate especially with wheelchairs that are in desperate need of maintenance. The ground of the 'weight pit is made of loose materials that are unsafe and unable to acCommodate a wheelchair. The able?bodied prisoners can enj 0y basketball and other recreational activities, while the wheelchair?bound . prisoners are severely limited. . 65. I Although Mr. ardina worked in the library at DRCF, he had to fast during the day because DRCF does not have a handicap accessible bathroom for prisoners on the west side of the facility where the library sits. To use a bathroom, Mr. ardina would have to push himself outside 101' hund1eds of yards hack to his housing unit. The DRCF library area actually has a handicap- accessible bathroom, but it is designated only for staff, and prisoners are not permitted to use that - facility. I I 66. Failure to Provide 0r Maintain Wheelchairs and?Assistants. Mr. Jardina is a six foot five, two hundred eighty pound wheelchair?bound individual who requires a wheelchair to ambulate. During his time at WCI iny2015, refused to provide Mr. Jardina with his own wheelchair, despite several available wheelchairs at the facility. In May 2015, WCI medical staff ordered that Mr. ardma be provided with a wheelchair, but failed to personalize a wheelchair for I him. Because of Mr. Jardina?s size, he requires modifications to a standard issue wheelchair to ensure his safety. Consequently, the wheelchair provided to Mr. ardina was too small, . uncomfortable, and was in need of several modifications to properly roll. [2'11 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 22 of 50 67. . WCI staff assigned an untrained prisoner as Mr. ardina?s wheelchair attendant. Because Mr. Jardin'a?s attendant was not trained, he pushed Mr. ardina outside in the rain from his housing, unit to the medication area. During that excursion, the right front wheel broke off of Mr. Jardina?s wheelchair as it went over cracks and uneven pavement on the walkway. The attendant lost his footing, and Mr. Jardina was thrown from his wheelchair 'Z'and landed on the ground. Mr. ardina hit his head on the concrete and lost consciousness. He also injured his back, -neck,1efthand, and left wrist. I 68. Mr. Jardina filed a grievance with the WCI warden, and received a- response stating that the cracked and uneven pavement did?not cause the injury. Instead, WCI attributed this incident to ?normal wear and tear?of the wheelchair.? Yet WCI delayed in repairing Mr. ardina? 5 Wheelchair. WCI also failed to personalize or assign a-wheelchair to Mr. Jardina that could be - tailored to his individual needs. WCI further failed to train prisoner attendants or to modify its medication administration routine such that. wheelchair-bound prisoners, like Mr. Jardina, did not have. tn navigate the elementseespecially with untrained wheelChair to obtain their medication. 69. When he arrived at DRCF, Mr. ardina continued to experience difficulties in having his wheelchair repaired, having replacement parts ordered, and. navigating the DRCF compound in the same way as his non?disabled countelparts. I 70. Engaging in Retaliation or Interference. Mr. ardina has ?led numerous grievances in an effort to improve his conditions of confinement, and as a result has been repeatedly threatened by staff. While at WCI, HDP scs' staff would routinely denigrate NIL-Jardina and threaten to transfer him to an even leSS ADA compliant facility if he continued his complaints. This practice continued at DRCF, with DRCF staff threatening Mr. ardina almost on a daily basis because he asSisted many other disabled prisoners with their grievances. Both facilities also routinely delayed [22] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 23 of 50 providing Mr. Jardinal with the necessary medical equipment he required to use his ileostomy bag. The stress of having a disability while incarcerated caused Mr. ardina tremendous anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation, and caused Mr. Jardina to go. without necessary and essential medical and physical accommodations. - '71. Despite his numerous grievances about objectively veri?able and meritorious matters, WCI, DRCF, and have dismissed each of Mr. Jardina grievances as lacking merit. This practice demonstrates willful ignorance of patently obvious issues in its facilities; Further con?rmation of retaliatory treatment exists in its response to Mr. Rogers? grievance, which raised the identical concerns about noncompliant facilities as Mr. Jardina raised in his myriad grievances. Warden Acuff con?rmed that many facilities at DRCF are not ADA compliant. Speci?cally, Warden Acuff identi?ed the following noncompliant features at DRCF: the bathrooms, showers, lack of grab bars and hand rails, bathroom to prisoner ratio, weight pit access, resurfacing complaints, table heights, and door sizes. Ironically though, Walden Acut?f issued her 1esponse after both Messrs. Rogers and Jardina were released from custody. To date, has not modified any of the identi?ed noncompliant features at DRCF. Larry CoZemcm .72- Larry Coleman has been incarcerated at DRCF since December 2018. Mr. Coleman requires a wheelchair to ambulate after a spinal cord 1nJury-1n 1990. His mobility issues substantially limit-several major life activities, including but not limited to walking and caring for - himself; Mr. Coleman?s disabilities are clearly documented in his medical and administrative - records maintained by has full knowledge that Mr. Coleman is disabled and requires accommodations. [2 3] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 24 of 50' 73. Failure to Provide or Maintain Wheelchairs and Assistants. transferred Mr. Coleman from WCI to DRCF in December 2018. At WCI, Mr. Coleman had a wheelchair that his family provided to him. Upon his transfer, DRCF refused to permit Mr. Coleman to use - his own wheelchair at the facility. Instead, DRCF told Mr. Coleman that he would have to use a wheelchair provided to him by DRCF. Mr. Coleman advised DRCF-staff that his. personal wheelchair was already fitted to him to accommodate his specific needs. DRCF ignored this fact and provided Mr. Coleman with a wheelchair designed only for indoor use. This wheelchair was too small for Mr. Coleman, was not ?tted to Mr. Coleman, was in poor condition, and was not designed for outside use. Mr. Coleman must travel outside of his housing unit to access every basic service, like food, medication, and the libraiy. DRCF nevertheless told Mr. Coleman that this was his only option. Consequently, Mr. Coleman has been con?ned to a wheelchair that cannot accommodate his needs since his arrival at and remains in that chair to date. Mr. Coleman?s wheelchair is in shoddy condition and routinely breaks, but DRCF fails to repair or replace the wheelchair. I 74. DRCF also refused. to provide Mr. Coleman with a ?pusher? to assist him in navigating around the large DRCF facility. I 75. Failure to Maintain Wheelchair Accessible Facilities. Mr. Goleman adopts and incorporates the previous paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 76. institutions are not wheelchair accessible, despite claims to-the contrary. Upon his arrival at DRCF, Mr. Coleman had signi?cant dif?culty with even the most basic activities of daily living because of DRCF 3 lack of handicap accessibility. 77. Mr. C01eman has also filed formal grievances with DRCF advising of that facility?s noncompliance, and also ?advising DRCF and. administrators that he has fallen in the shower. To date, neither DRCF nor have adequately responded to these grievances, . [24] . Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 25 of 50 instead telling Mr. Coleman that his complaints are unfounded because DRCF isan ADA- compliant facility. 78. Failure to Provide Jobs and Other Programming. Mr. Coleman arrived at DRCF in December 2018, and was medically cleared for a job on January 12, 2019. However, DRCF refused to provide a job to Mr. Coleman until April 23, 2019. During these months without a job, Mr. Coleman lost diminution credits that he should have earned based on his classifiCation status and security level. It was not until Mr. Coleman submitted a formal grievance to DRCF that he . was assigned a job. 79. Engagement in Retaliation and Interference. Mr. Coleman and the other prisoners Who use wheelchairs have been subjected to unfair harassment that interferes with their equal ac'cess to programs, services, and activities. For instance, medical and case management staff at DRCF have repeatedly told Mr. Coleman that he will be transferred back to a western Maryland prison if he continues to complain about ADA noncompliance. Vincent Berrv 80. Mr. Berry has been incarcerated at DRCF since approximately 2016. Mr. Berry is a paraplegic prisoner who is con?ned to a wheelchair. He has no use of his legs and requires a wheelchair to ambulate. His mobility issues substantially limit several major life activities, including but not limited to walking and caring for himself. Mr. Berry?s disabilities are well documented in his medical and administrative records maintained by has full knowledge that Mr. Berry is disabled and requires accommodations. I 31. Failure to Maintain Wheelchair-Accessible Facilities. As previously stated regarding Messrs. Rogers and Jardina, DRCF is not an ADA compliant facility. Mr. Berry experiences the same dif?culties and exclusions as previously described. [251 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 26 of 50 I 82. Mr. Berry has also ?led formal grievances with DRCF. advising of that facility?s noncompliance, and also advising DRCF and DPS CS. administrators that he has sustained Several injuries after falling in the shower. To date, neither DRCF nor DP SCS have adequately responded to these grievances, instead telling Mr. Berry that his complaints are unfounded because DRCF is an ADA compliant facility. 83. Mr. Berry also suffers from'DRCF?s refusal to provide him with necessary medical equipment. For example, Mr. Berry requires routine replacement medical supplies, like single catheters, gloves; and undeipads, but DRCF fails to provide him with the necessary-provisions. This leaves Mr. Berry without the ability to properly or safely tend to his medical needs in a sanitary manner and causes Mr.- Berry tremendous humiliation and embarrassment. Mr. Berry also requires periodic maintenance to his wheelchair, but DRCF refuses to make those accommodations. failures in these areas leaves Mr. Berry at a signi?cant disadvantage as compared to his non-disabled peers. 84-. - Mr. Berry must instead rely on his family to call the wheelchair manufacturer and request that it visits DRCF and repairs Mr. Berry?s wheelchair. The only time that DRCF assisted . Mr. Berry in contacting the wheelchair manufacturer, that company billed Mr. Berry for the repair costs. 85.3 Failure to Provide Jobs and Other Programming. MI. Berry arrived at DRCF in 2016 and was medically cleared-for a job assignment shortly thereafter. However, DRCF has refused to provide'a job to Mr. Berry since his initial commitment. This has, and continues to . - disadvantage Mr. Berry because he cannot earn money or diminution credits, and he is instead forced to sit idle all day. Mr. Berry is thus treated differently than his non-disabled counterparts solely because of his disability. [26] Case D'ocument2 Filed'lO/23/19 Page 27 0150 Prisoners Witthon?Mobilit?y Impairments? John ishback 86. . WOrk Release and Employment at DRCF. Mr. Fishback is currently incarcerated I at DRCF, but has spent signi?cant time in institutions since 2002. Mr; Fishback suffers from bipolar disorder, which was diagnosed at approximately age eleven. through its private medical contractor, has prescribed medications to Mr. Fishback for this condition. In approximately 2004, through its agents, volunteered Mr. Fishback for an eicperirnental shoulder replacement surgery. This procedure left Mr. Fishback disabled and with a chronic pain condition in his left shoulder. For this ichronic condition, DP SCS, through its agents,- has prescribed non?opioid pain medication (Tramadol) to Mr. Fishback for more than ten years. Without this medication, Mr. Fishback is in constant and intractable pain. . 87. Throughout his time in DP SCS custody, Mr. Fishback has taken his Tramadol as prescribed and without issue. Indeed, he has relied. on this medication to relieve his chronic pain condition and to provide him with a basic quality of life. 88. In May 2019, granted Mr. Fishback parole in December 2019, provided I that he met certain conditions. Mr. FiShback IS also eligible for the Home Detention Unit as of October .2019. I 89. In order for Mr. Fishback to qualify for HDU and for transitional housing?which he has already secured?upon his release, he must work so that he canlsave enough money to pay for these transitional facilities. HoWever, since arriving at DRCF in?2019, and DRCF have refused to provide Mr. Fishback with a job. I 90. Moreover, upon his transfer to DRCF, Mr. Fishbackis classification status and security level was reduced to pre?release?a status that entitles him to work release and other . privileges. [27] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 28 of 50 I 91. Although DP SCS prisoners can work in the institutions during their incarceration, that employment only pays $0.90 to $2.75 per day. By contrast, work release employment pays prisoners regular wages. Maryland?s current minimum wage is $10.10 per hourpre?release prisoner, Mr. Fishback is entitled to work release programs, . provided that he is medically cleared and its agents. However, since his arrival at DRCF, DP SCS and its agents have systematically denied Mr. Fishback any opportunity to engage in HDU- or work release programming. and its agents identify ?Mr. Fishback?s Tramadol preScr-ipti?on as the sole reason for his inability to work. According to 5 agents and medical personnel, Mr. Fishback?s status as a chronic pain patient with a valid prescription issued by precludes him from being able to participate in work release prOgrams. 93. Worse yet, DRCF has refused to offer Mr. Fishback any-job'at all since his arrival at that facility. Instead, Mr. Fishback must sit idle all day. He is not able to earn even the nominal daily wage available to his non-disabled peers. A 94. Mr. Fishback has ?led formal grievances about this issue and discussed the matter - with his case manager at DRCF. In response, DRCF advised Mr. Fishback that policy prohibits him from participating in work release because he takes Tramadol. According to and DRCF, Mr. Fishbaek can only obtain the requisite medical clearance for work release.- if he stops taking Tramadol. I 95. In response, and seeing that and DRCF-explicitly conditioned his ability to work on, discontinuing Tramadol, Mr. Fishback reluctantly stopped taking his Tramadol I prescriptions He consulted with DRCF medical staff and advised them that he was only choosing this route because of the ultimatum placed on his work release. 96. Mr. Fishback then discontinued his Tramadol prescription over a two week period. Mr. Fishback endured this painful and disturbing process alone and without [23] I Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 29 of 50 assistance from or DRCF. In fact, and DRCF do not offer programming or . services for prisoners who are discontinuing prescription pain medications. Mr. Fishback endured . horrible withdrawal as he tapered off of his Tramadol. He also suffered serious- side effects-from this process. Mr. Fishback asked his case manager for addiction counseling or any assistance to soften the effects of this-process, but no such services are aVailable at and if they are, they were not made available to Mr. Fishback. 97. and through its agents, assured Mr. Fishback that once he discontinued the Tramadol, he would be eligible for work release. Mr. Fishback felt trapped, coerced, and thought that this was the only way to obtain work release opportunities. Once he discontinued the Tramadol, Mr. Fishback was in excruciating pain and unable to perform many basic activities of daily living. 98. I However, Mr. Fishback has not been providedwith work release opportunities even after he discontinued the: Tramadol. in fact, has advised Mr. Fishback that it removed. work as a condition of his parole. Upon learning that work release Would never be made available I to him even though he is eligible for same, Mr. Fishback resumed his Tramadol prescription. 99. MoreoVer, DRCF still refuses to assign Mr. Fishback any work whatsoever, even within the facility; Consequently, Mr. Fishback is at a significant disadvantage, especially when compared with his non-disabled peers, in that he cannot earn money, cannOt work, and cannot access programs and services for which he is otherWise eligible. 100. In order for Mr. Fishback to satisfy the terms of his release from incarceration, he must ?nd transitiOnal housing that will accept him upon his release. Without this, Mr. Fishback cannot satisfy the terms of his release and risks remaining in prison for the remainder of his sentence. [29] I Document2 'Filed 10/23/19 Page 30 of 50 101. On July 10, 2019, Mr. Fishback obtained preliminary approval from The Way Homes, a faith?based transitional housing facility in Pasadena, Maryland. This facility sent a letter to Mr. Fishback? case manager at DRCF advising that Mr. Fishback was approved for the program and that he would be expected to pay a down payment of $350.00 before moving in. Thereafter, Mr. Fishback must pay this facility $175.00 per week 'as rent. . 102. Because and DRCF are precluding Mr. IFishback from working?both at DRCF and onla work release pro gram??Mr. Fishback cannot earn the money he needs to pay for his transitional housing and risks being unable to satisfy the terms. of his release. Consequently - Mr. Fishback is disadvantaged, as compared to his non-disabled peers, solely because of his disability. I Eric Andre Young 103. Mr. Young is currently incarcerated at DRCF. Mr. Young is an IaSthmatic and was diagnosed with that condition as a child. I Upon his arrival at DRCF in 2019, Mr. Young was classi?ed as being eligible for outside work detail and work release programs. and its agents performedlthe requisite medical clearance evaluation to authorize Mr. Young? 5 inclusion in . these programs and con?rmed, inter alia, that Mr.IYoung could lift more than ?fty pounds. However, and its agents nevertheless deemed Mr. Young ineligible for outside detail and/or work release because of his asthma diagnosis. 104. Mr. Young sought reconsideration of this decision with his case manager at DRCF. However, the-case manager advised Mr. Young that it is the policy of DRCF and to prohibit prisoners with asthma, like Mr. Young, ?om outside work detail and/or work release programs. 105. Mr. Young ?led a formal grievance with DRCF, but DRCF has not responded to that grievance. [30] Case Document 2 . Filed 10/23/_19 Page 31 of 50 106. Because DPS CS and DRCF are precluding Mr. Young from assignments for which he is eligible solely because of his asthma diagnosis, Mr. Young cannot access the same opportunities, Services, as his non-disabled peers. The DRCF Facility 107. DRCF is aiminimum security correctional facility located in Jessup, Maryland and is under the control of and DOC. The facility was opened in 2013 and houses more than 500 male prisoners at any time. Defendants allege that the DRCF IS an ADA-compliant facility I with the ability to house wheelchair?bound individuals and individuals with other disabilities. 108. DRCF serves as a transitional facility for prisoners preparing for release. Many of the prisoners housed at DRCF are assigned to outside work details and have other job assignments - and pro gramming opportunities to aid in their transition. Some of these assignments are required as terms of the prisoners? parole. 109. In conjunction with its work release program, DRCF offers resume workshOps, vocational training, and other programs that allow prisoners to receive diminution credits. Each. diminution credit correlates to a one day reduction in a prisoner?s sentence. A prisoner may earn ?ve industrial credits each month during which he satisfactorily completes work assignments. Additionally, a prisoner may earn up to ten credits each month in which he shows satisfactory progress in special werk projects or programs selected by the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary of Work assignments also provide valuable Vocational training for re-entry. 110. DRCF houses numerous wheelchair?bound individuals. Approximately twenty- four (24) wheelchair-bound prisoners reside in Housing Unit l?C (the ?Housing Unit?)?an allegedly I?ADA?compliant housing unit within DRCF. As such, DRCF is required to make "reasonable accommodations to allow wheelchair?bound prisoners equal access to its facilities, programs, services, and activities. . [311 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 32 of 50 111. Additionally, obligated to comply with the 2010 Standards for Titles 11 I and Facilities: 2004 ADAAG Standardsi?), published by the Department of Justice. The ADA standardsset forth speci?c building requirements, such as the maximum allowable slope for wheelchair-access ramps and the required safety features in handicap-accessible bathrooms. The 2010 standard for State and local governments consists of Title II regulations at 28 C.F.R 35.151 and the 2001 ADAAG at 36 1191, appendices and D. 112. facilities fail to meet the standards required by the ADA '28 C.F.R 35.151 Speci?cally, fails to provide an adequate number of accessible mobility cells pursuant to Further, DRCF fails to comply with ADA Standards by failing to provide passing spaCes in its hallways 403. 5.3), wheelchair-accessible shower and bathroom facilities 603-10, 903), grab bar's in appropriate locations (?53 609), adequate wheelchair- accessible ramps throughout the facility 405), and other features in the cells and housing units 807). I 113. DRCF also fails to provide the requisite ratio of shower and bathroom facilities to its disabled prisoner population, as required by Md. Code Regs. 12.02.03.06 (4) and (6). [32] l? Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 33 of 50 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .COUNTI. (42 U. S. C. 12101- 12165, 12202- 12213?Discrimination Against Plaintiffs Because of Actual or Perceived Disabilities 1n Violation of the American With Disabilities Act) (Against All Defendants) The previous paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 114. Congress enacted the ADA ?to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate. for the - elimination 0f discrimination against individuals ivith disabilities.? 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(l). Title II of the ADA provides that ?no quali?ed individual with a disability shall, by. reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the bene?ts of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.? 42 U.S.C. ?'12132. 115 Public entities I may I not eny a quali?ed individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or bene?t from the aid, bene?t, or service? they provide, nor may they afford such individuals ?an opportunity-to participate in or bene?t from the aid, bene?t, or service that, is not equal to that afforded others.? 28 C.F.R. i? Further, public entities may not provide a quali?ed individual with an ?aid, bene?t, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity? to gain a result Or bene?t and from ?limit[ing] a quali?ed individual Iwith a disability in the enjoyment-of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, bene?t, or service.? Id. (vii). 116. The ADA prohibits public entities from imposing ?eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an indiVidual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be: shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.? Id. [33] Case Document 2' Filed 10/23/19 Page 34 of 50 A public entity may ?impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of its services, programs, or activities . . . based on actual risk, not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities. Id. at 117. Public entities administration of their facilities and policies may not ?have the effect?of subjecting quali?ed individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.? Id. 1 18. Public entities'are required to ?make reasonable modi?cations in policies, practices, er procedures when the modi?cations are necessary to avoid?discrimination on the basis of disability unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modi?cations would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.? Id. 119. Title VI of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals for. ?oppos[ing] any act or practice made unlawful? by the ADA. 42 U. S. C. 12203(a). It also prohibits the retaliation against, or the interference, coercion, or intimidation by any individual who has opposed 120. administrative grievance process, work programs, educational programs, diminution of con?nement credits, and facilities are services, programs, or activities under 42 U.S.C. 12132. 121. Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities, or perceived disabilities, currently residing at DRCF. Plaintiffs are ?quali?ed individuals with a disability? as contemplated in- Title II ofthe ADA, 42 12131(2). I 122. Defendants are departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the State of Maryland, or representatives, agents, and employees of those entities, and are public entities as de?ned?in the ADA. 12 U.S.C. [341 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 35 of' 50 . 123. As prisoners committed to the custody 'of Plaintiffs are entitled to participate in and receive bene?ts of these services, programs, and aetivities. .124. I Defendants have a pattern and practice ?of coercing, intimidating, threatening, . and/or interfacing with prisoners" exercise or enjoyment of their ADA rights, and doing so because prisoner have exercised or enjoyed their ADA rights or aided and encouraged?others to do so. 125. Defendant uses eligibility criteria that either explicitly or tacitly screen out prisoners with disabilities. I 126'. Defendant fails to maintain in operable working condition the features required for programs, services, and activities to 'be readily accessible to prisoners with disabilities. 127. Defendants have denied, and continue to refuse Plaintiffs equal access to and bene?ts services, programs, and activities because of Plaintiffs? disabilities or perceived disabilities. Defendants discriminateagainst Plaintiffs by failing to make reasonable . accommwations to facilities that would allow Plaintiffs to safely access those facilities and participate in the services, programs, and activities made available to other non-disabled. prisoners. Defendants have unfairly denied equal access to work release programs because of Plaintiffs? disabilities. Retaliation by Defendants? and their agents and employees against Plaintiffs for filing grievances and complaining about noncompliant facilities also constitutes discrimination?against Plaintiffs because of their'disabilities. I 128. Defendants? administration of housing assignments and sectirity Classi?cations has the effect- of subjecting Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities and substantially impairs the objectives of the prisoner housing program by subjecting Plaintiffs Ito exploitation, safety hazards, and neglect. Defendants fail to house prisoners in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; places prisoners in _.facilities that do not offer the same [35] - Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 36 of 50 programming as other facilities; and deprives prisoners with disabilities of visitation with family I . members by'placing them in distant facilities where they would not otherwise be housed. 129. Defendants have retaliated against Plaintiffs by revoking or restrictng their privileges, harassing them, threatening to con?scate their property, placing them in inappropriate housing assignments based -on their security classi?cation levels and/or their disability-related needs, and summarily rejecting their grievances and complaints. 1130. On information and belief, Defendants? ongoing ADA violations have also caused . Plaintiffs to serve longer terms of confinement than non?disabled prisoners solely because of their disability or perceived disability. Speci?cally, Defendants? noncompliant policies limit the jobs available to Plaintiffs because of their disabilities, making Plaintiffs unable to earn diminution of con?nement credits in the same way as their non?disabled peers. 131. Plaintiffs are also routinely denied appropriate and timely medical care, follow up I treatment, and medical supplies. Specifically, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs are not provided with supplies or parts for their wheelchairs, iileostomy bags, and other necessary devices to aCcommodat'e' their disabilities; This practice has resulted in the Wheelchair Plaintiffs being unable to repair their wheelchairs when necessary, or to 'use-the bathroom in a safe and sanitary manner, and has caused them to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and tremendous physical and emotional discomfort. 132. The Non?Wheelchair Plaintiffs have medical conditions?the . need for prescriptions pain medication and an asthma diagnosis?which and DRCP uses as excuses to refuse them access to outside detail and/or work release programs. These Non-Wheelchair- Plaintiffs have made formal complaints to and DRCF but have been denied and/or ignored. Therefore, the Non?Wheelchair Plaintiffs cannot access the same opportunities, services, and programs as their non?disabled peers. [35] Case Document2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 37 of 50 133. For example, for Mr. Fishback to qualify for HDU and'for transitional housing (which he has already secured a commitment) upon his release, he must Work so that he can save enough money to pay for these transitional facilities. However, since arriving at DRCF in 2019, and DRCF have refused to provide Mr. Fishback with an institutional job or work release . based solely on his Tramadol prescription. 1 I 134. i. - Mr. Fishback is a chronic pain patient with a valid prescriptionissued by According to DP SCS and DRCF, Mr. Fishback can only obtain the requisite medical clearance for work release if he stops taking Trarnadol. - i 135. After DRCF and through its agents, coerced Mr. Fishback by assuring him that once he discontinued. the Tramadol, he would be eligible for work release, he went off the medication. He. experienced withdrawal including excruciating pain and was unable to' perform many basic activities of daily living. DPS CS and DRCF do not offer programming or services for prisoners who are discontinuing prescription'pain medications. Mr. Fishback asked his case manager for addiction counseling or any assistance'to soften the effects of this process, but was refused treatment. . 136. After all this and two weeks of withdrawal, still refused to provide Mr. Fishback with work release opportunities. Upon learning that work release would never be made available to him even though he is eligible for same, Mr. Fishback resumed his ITrarnadol prescription. Mr. Young?s asthma has been similarly used against him by 137. Therefore, the Non-Wheelchair Plaintiffs are disadvantaged, as compared to their I non-disabled peers, solely because of their disabilities. . 138. The Wheelchair Plaintiffs also have no privacy during their medical appointments because of Defendants" noncompliance. For example, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs do not enjoy the sMe partition or privacy wall/ curtain during their medical visits because DRCF is not designed to [37] Case Document2 Filele/23/19 Page38 of 50 adequately accommodate wheelchairs in the medical unit. This causes the Wheelchair Plaintiffs to lose'their medical privacy and their con?dentiality in the doctor/patient relationship. 139. Similarly, the. Wheelchair Plaintiffs have no privacy when using the bathroom because of Defendants? noncompliance. As previously described,_DRCF lacks the. proper ratio of handicap accessible bathrooms to prisoners, causing disabled prisoners to use other bathrooms that are not designed to accommodate their needs. -- 140. . The Wheelchair 1? Plaintiffs also suffer from having no access to recreational programs and services that are available to non?disabled prisoners. For example and on information and belief, the weight pit at is ?lled with loose material that cannot accommodate a wheelchair. As a result, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs cannot access weight or exercise equipment that is madeavailable to non?disabled prisoners. 141. Similarly, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs cannot reasonably access each part of the DRCF facility, including the handicapped bathrooms, the medication department, or the dining areas because the Defendants have failed, to ensure that the walkways and pavement at DRCF are properly graded. - Moreover, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs must travel outside and navigate the elements when moving from their housing unit to other parts of DRCF. This damages the Wheelchair Plaintiffs? wheelchairs, and neither nor DP address these ongoing needs. As a result, the Wheelchair Plaintiffs cannot access services and facilities that are made available to non-disabled prisoners. 14.2.1 Defendants? refusalito make reasonable modi?cations to facilities by providing ADA-required safety features has subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disability'.? Defendants? failure to make reasonable modi?cations to DPS work release programs has excluded Plaintiffs from participating in the work release program on the basis of Plaintiffs? disabilities. [33] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 39 of 50 143. Plaintiffs have suffered physical injuries and are regularly exposed to dangerous conditions as a result of Defendants? refusal to make reasonable modi?cations to DPS CS facilities. Because of Defendants repeated and ongoing violations, Plaintiffs must routinely place themselves in situations that are highly likely to cause signi?cant injuries or have already caused signi?cant injuries as a result of Defendants? noncompliant bathrooms, showers, cells, access ramps, and other services and facilities. Plaintiffs have also suffered physical and emotional injuries because of . Defendants? failure to provide addiction counseling and drug detoxi?cation programs. I 144. Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of lost wages, lost diminution credits, and a lack of vocational training from Defendants? failure to make reasonable modi?cations to policies.? Plaintiffs are unable to participate in work release program to earn wages, nor do they receive vocational training due to their disabilities. Plaintiffs are also not able to participate in off-site trips because and DRCF have repurposed the ADA?compliant transportation vehicles to carry ammunition to and from various ?ring ranges. Indeedway for them to leave the facility is ?by release or by death.? 145.. Defendants continue to house Plaintiffs and other disabled prisoners in noncompliant prison-facilities Without providing reasonable modifications to the facility by adding the safety features required by the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and other disabled prisoners are exposed to a substantial risk of inj uryfa risk that routinely materializes into actual physical injury. I 146. Defendants continue to operate its prison facilities under explicit or tacit policies ?that exclude-Plaintiffs and other disabled prisoners from important educational, vocational, and other vital programs that are intended to both satisfy the minimal constitutional baseline concerning conditions of con?nement, and to ease prisoners? transition from incarceration and back into the community. [39] Case Document 2' Filed 10/23/19 Page 40 of 50 147. For example, Defendants remove or otherwise cancel Plaintiffs? health insurance upon their initial commitment to However, Defendants either do not have a policy, or fail to follow a policy if it exists, to. assist Plaintiffs in resuming their health insurance?upon their - release from inCarceration, This practice has resulted, interalia, in Plaintiff Rogers, being unable to obtain necessary medical care (for serious physical injuries sustained during his incarceration with DP SCS) because he cannot reactivate his private health insurance and had no assistance upon his release from regarding same. 148'. As a result, Plaintiffs are signi?cantly disadvantaged upon their release from incarceration, especially as compare to their non?disabled peers, because Plaintiffs haVe a host of medical and emotional issues with which to contend??all caused or exacerbated by Defendants? . noncompliance. 149. Defendants? discrimination against Plaintiffs and fame to comply with the ADA will continue to put Plaintiffs at a severe disadvantage upon release and expose Plaintiffs to I, at 0 l' Defendants make the reasonable modi?cations required by the ADA. 150. Defendants are ?rmly aware of the myriad violations noted herein, but havefailed . to correct'them,thus exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly I situated in, custody. I 151. Defendants? pattern, practice, and deliberate indifference as described herein has proximately caused harm to individuals with disabilities in custody, and Plaintiffs have. suffered, and continue to suffer from harm and violations of their ADA rights. These harms will. continue if not enjoined by this Court. i 152. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages and such other and further relief as demanded herein. . [40] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 41 of 50 COUNT 11 (29 U.S.C. 794 Because of DiSability In Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) (Against All Defendants) The previous paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 153. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that othervvise quali?ed individual with a disability in the United States . .shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the bene?ts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal .?nancial assistance? 29 U. S. C. 294(a). )7 ?6 154. Section 504 de?nes ?[p]rogram or activity as all of the operations of a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or the entity of such State or local government thatndistributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and cachet-her State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government.? Id. (B). The requirements of Section 504 apply ?to each recipient of Federal ?nancial assistance from the Department of Justice and to each program or activity receiving such assistance.? 28 CPR. 42.502. I 155. A recipient of federal funding may not ?[d]eny a quali?ed handicapped person the I opportunity accorded others to participate in the program or activity receiving Federal ?nancial assistance .or ?[d]eny a quali?ed handicapped person an equal opportunity to achieve the same bene?ts that others achieve in the program or activity receiving Federal ?nancial assistance.? Id. 42. 503(b)(i) Further, federally funded programs are prohibited from denying? ?a quali?ed handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in the program 01 aetivity by providing . services to the program.? Id. [41] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 42 of 50 156. Entities receiving federal funding must ?administer programs or activities in the most integrated setting appropriate-to the needs of quali?ed handicapped persons.? Id. The entity is prohibited from ?purposely or in effect discrimin[ating] on the basis of handicap, defeat or substantially impair accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient?s program or activity with respect tohandicapped persons, or perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both recipients are subject to common administrative control or- are agencies of the same State.? Id. 157. Defendants employ more than 15. individuals and, by way of operating every- Maryland state prison, including DRCF, WCI, and receive federal grants and funding to I administer these facilities. Accordingly, Defendants must follow the mandates of Section 504. .158. I Defendants have a pattern and practice of excluding quali?ed individuals with disabilities, like Plaintiffs, from participating in and enjoying the bene?ts of programs, services, or activities, solely because of their disabilities. Such pattern and practices constitute discrimination against Plaintiffs. I 159. Defendants, through the operation every Maryland prison, offer pro grams, services, and activities to prisoners, such as an administrative grievance process, work pro grams, diminution credits, education programs, vocational training, inmate housing, and counseling. Defendants? programs, services, and activities are offered as means to help priSoners transition into society and provide useful skills that allow newly released prisoners to be self-reliant upon release. These .- programs and activities are also essential in reducing the potential for recidivism. - 160. Plaintiffs, as individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities, are individuals speci?cally contemplated by Section 504. 161. As prisoners committed to custody, Plaintiffs are eligible to participate in and receive the bene?ts of each of these services, programs, or activities. [421 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 43 of 50 162. As described herein, Defendants deny Plaintiffs equal access to and bene?ts from Vservices, pregrams, and, activities because of Plaintiffs? disabilities or perceived disabilities. . Defendants fail to equally extend training and work release programs to Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs to lost the opportunity to work and earn money while incarcerated. 163.. Defendants further discriminate against Plaintiffs because of their disabilities or per-ceiVed disabilities when they relegate them to obs that provide lower pay and fewer diminution credits based on stereotypes about their abilities as disabled individuals. 164. Defendants also discriminate against Plaintiffs because of their disabilities or perceived disabilities by failing to provide them with the ireCessary medical care and devices that they require, and by refusing to properly house Plaintiffs in accommodations that are Specifically designed and equipped for disabled individuals. Retaliation by Defendants and their agents and employees against Plaintiffs and other prisoners Who assist Plaintiffs ?With the myriad difficulties they face because of Defendants? noncompliance also constitutes discrimination against Plaintiffs because of their disability. 165. Defendants also deny Plaintiffs the ability to obtain meaningful work release assignments, despite the Plaintiffs being classified for same. Indeed, employees and agents, including its medical personnel, are complicit with Defendants? refusals as medical staff routinely deny Plaintiffs medical clearance to participate in programs and services for which they are otherwise eligible, citing Plaintiffs? disabilities as the sole reason for denial. 166. Plaintiffs have suffered physical injuries as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants? discrimination. 167. Moreover, Plaintiffs have lost the opportunity to receive wages, diminution credits, and vocational training and will continue to experience these losses upon release. On information [43] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 44 of 50 and belief, this discrimination has and continues to cause disabled prisoners, like Plaintiffs, to remain incarcerated for longer terms of confinement than non-disabled prisoners. I 168. Defendants have retaliated against Plaintiffs by revoking or restricting their privileges, harassing them, threatening to confiscate their property, refusing to discuss these ongoing issues with them, and by threatening to transfer them to even less compliant Maryland prison facilities. 169. Defendants? failures to provide equal access to their services, bene?ts, activities, programs, privileges, and to provide reasonable modi?cations and accommodations, are policies, regular practices, and/or customs of. the Defendants. 170. Defendants? continued failure to? comply with the Rehabilitation Act has caused, and Will continue-to cause, harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs xvill "continue to bellharmed unless-and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modi?cations to their policies, practices, procedures, and facilities pursuant to Section 504. I 171. Defendants? pattern, practice, and deliberate indifference as described herein has proximately caused harm to individuals vvith disabilities in custody, and Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer from harm and violations of their rights under the Rehabilitation Act. These harms will continue if not enjoined by this Court. 172. 'Accordingly, Plaintiffs'are entitled to compensatory damages and such other and. further relief as demanded herein. COUNT (42 1983 Subjecting Plaintiffs to Serious Harm and a Substantial' Risk of Serious Harm in Violation of the Eighth Amendment) (Defendants Green, Meyer, Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs) . The previous paragraphs are incorporated as if fully stated herein. [44] Case Document2 Filed 10/23/19 Page45 of 50 173. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: ?Ekcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments in?icted.? 174. Plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to. 42 U.S.C. 1? 1983 to seek redressfor Defendants? in?iction Of cruel and unusual punishments. Defendants fail to make reasonable accommodations to their policies and procedures or to provide Plaintiffs auxiliary aids or services to allow Plaintiffs to safely navigate facilities, and to access the jobs, programming, and services available to other non?disabled prisoners. 175. Defendants also refuse to consider Plaintiffs? disabilities. in housing, work, recreation, programming, and other areas all of iwhich severely limit, if not bar entirely, Plaintiffs from participating in activities of daily living that - are available to their non-disabled peers. Defendants refuse to make reasonable accommodations despite Plaintiffs? multiple written requests and grievances. I I 176. Defendants are, aWare of the harms and risks created by their policies and/or the way their policies are implemented, and have refused to make reasonable accommodations to facilities or policies. - i 177. Defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional and statutory violations in that each of them: directly participated in the infraction; failed to remedy the wrong after learning of the violation through written complaints and grievances; created a I policy or custom under which unconstitutional and unlawful practices occurred; allowed such a policy or custom to continue; ignored the longstanding pattern of ADA noncompliance; and was deliberately indifferent in both their own conduct and in managing their subordinates, which indifference caused the constitutional violations described herein. [45] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 46 of 50 178. Plaintiffs have sustained, and continue to suffer serious and unreasonable risks of harm by the conduct 0f the Defendants, including but not limited to, physical injury, humiliation, disruption-of their relationships with their loved ones, severe anxiety and emotional distress, extended terms of con?nement because they are unable to earn diminution credits as they should, ?nancial hardships, and other ongoing failures as described herein. 179. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the conduct of Defendants and are each entitled to compensatory and punitiVe damages. I COUNT Iv (42 1983 Constitutional Denial of Due Process in Failing to Train and/0r Supervise) (Defendants Green, Mayer, Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs) . The previous paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 180. As the Plaintiffs were persOns in the custodylof Defendants Green, Moyer, Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs, a special relationship existed between these the Plaintiffs. 18,1. Defendants Green, Moyer, Hill, and Corcoran are policymakers for and in that capacity establish policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices for and DOC regarding the housing and conditions of con?nement of prisoners and the conduct of its staff. Defendants Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs are responsible for implementing policies and regulations at their particular prison facilities, and for supervising staff therein. . 182, Defendants Green, Moyer, Hill, Corcoran', ,Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs developed and maintained policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices regarding. the treatment of prisoners with disabilities that exhibit a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of 1 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 47 of 50 such prisoners, as these Defendants knew that such policies routinely deprived the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of their constitutional rights. I i i 183. Defendants Green, Moyer,-Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs failed to properly :train and supervise staff With respect to reasonable accommodations for disabled prisoners, the legal requirements for physical and auxiliary accommodations for such disabled prisoners, and properly responding to disabled prisoners? complaints about the inadequacy, or like here, the complete absence of such accommodations. __184. Defendants Green, Moyer, Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs were deliberately indifferent in failing to provide the requisite training and supervision to DPS CS staff, or the requisite protection and assistance to the Plaintiffs. 185.. Defendant Green, Moyer, Hill, Corcoran, Acuff, Campbell, Graham, and Scruggs? failures caused harm to the Plaintiffs, as described herein. COUNT (Violations of Articles 16 and 25 of 'the Maryland Declaration of Rights) (Against All Defendants) The previous paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 186. ?At all relevant times, each Defendant was acting under the color of state law as- departments, officers, and employees of the State of Maryland, and their acts-and/or omissions were conducted within the scope of their of?cial duties or. employment. 187. I As described herein, Defendants? acts and omissions deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Articles 16 and 25, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 188. The acts and omissions described herein caused injuries to the Plaintiffs. [47] Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 48 of 50 189. At all relevant times, Defendants were acting pursuant to custom, policy, authority, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions toward the Plaintiffs. 190. As adirect andl'proximate result of Defendants? conduct, as described herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses, some of which may be continuing in nature, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to compensatory and special damages. 191. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to money damages to compensate them for their injuries and for the violation and deprivation of their rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grants the following relief as to Counts I through V: A. Enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiffs equal and effective access to the grievance process, library, work programs, educational and vocational programs, building facilities, medical facilities, and to safe housing; I. I B. Enjoin Defendants from denying the Plaintiffs proper housing accommodations that. can adequately accommodate their disability; I C. I Enjoin Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiffs for engaging in protected . activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act and/0r Rehabilitation Act; I D. Enj oin Defendants to award Plaintiffs diminution credits toward their release in an amount commensurate I with Plaintiffs? lost opportunities to earn such credits through work, educational, or training programs as a result of Defendants? discriminatory actions; I E. Enjoin Defendants from transferring prisoners with disabilities to ADA noncompliant prison facilities or institutions; Case Document '2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 49 of 50 F. Award compensatory damages to each Plaintiff; G. Award punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; H. Award Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 1988, their costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys? fees in this action; and I. . Grant any and all additional relief that Plaintiffs? causes require. COUNT v1 (Negligence) (Plaintiff Karl Rogers against Defendants and Scruggsl Plaintiff Rogers incorporates the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. .192. Defendants and Scruggs owed a duty to Mr. Rogers arising out of their special relationship with him to protect him against unreasonable risk of physical harm. 193. Defendants and Scruggs knew that was not ADA-compliant because it did not have handicapped showers handrails, anti- slip guards, or shower chairs for disabled prisoners, like Mr. Rogers. In sum, Defendants DP SCS and SCI uggs knew that prisoners, like Mr. Rogers, faced an unreasonable risk of physical harm. 194. Defendants and Scruggs breached this duty by ignoring ADA noncompliance, and by allowing staff?to force Mr. Rogers the shower. facilities on wet ?oors, and to prohibit Mr. Rogers to bring his forearm! crutches or any other assistive devices into the shower with him. Even if Defendants and Scruggs did not intentionally ignore these practices and this behavior, they nevertheless breached the duty owed to Mr. Rogers by failing to intervene after becoming aware of these impermissible practices. 195. These avoidable breaches caused Mr. Rogers to fall as he exited, the shower on January 3, 2019, which fall caused Mr. Rogers to sustain several tears in his right shoulder, and other physical injuries. . [491 Case Document 2 Filed 10/23/19 Page 50 of 50 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Karl Rogers prays for judgment in his favor and against Defendants DPS CS and Scruggs, jointly and severally, in the amount 'of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars as compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate. Respectful SIZED itted, (13/ g4 Erek L. Barro Allen E. Honick WHITEFORD, TAYLOR PRESTON, L.L.P. Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland. 21202- 1636 (410) 347- 8700 - ahonick@wtplaw.com Counsel for Plaintif?; DENIAND FOR JURY TRIAL The ahove? captioned Plaintiffs respectfully request that this matter be heard by a jury. All n?E. Hohi I 0169022 [50] Case Document 2-1 Filed 10/23/19 Page lpf3 .7- - 1-. y'l. . 71] i .Fi?1i41515 EUR- . .- - Z?i?i RUE 3t} Rid ?95: 3'6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR Baltimore City (W - - CIVIL CASE INFORMATION REPORT til we BW 33%: DIRECTIONS Plaintiff: This Information Report must be completed and attached to the complaint ?led withthe Clerk of Court unless your case is exempted from the requirement by the Chief Judge of the Court of? Appeals pursuant to Rule Defendant: You must ?le an Information Report as required by Rule THIS INFORMA I 0N REPORT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A PLEADING FORM FILED BY: EPLAINTIF UDEFENDANT CASE NUMBER . (Clerk to Insert) CASE KARL ROGERS. ET AL. MD. DEPT. OF ET AL. Plaintiff Defendant NAME: KARL ROGERS PHONE: ADDRESS: 125 Marine Circle, Ocean City, MD 21842 - If represented by an attorney: - RARTY's NAME: Allen 13- Honickp Esq- PHONE: 410-659-6420 ADDREss;Whiteford, Taylor Preston, 7?St. Paul St, Balto., MD 21202 E-MAIL: ahonick@gmail-com JURY EYes EINO RELATED CASE DYes lNo If yes, Case if known' ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF 10 days? PLEADING TYPE New Case: IOriginal Administrative Appeal Cl Appeal Existing Case: DPost-Judgment CIAmendment If?ling in an existing case, skip Case Category/ Subcategory section - go to Relief section. IF NEW CASE: CASE (Check one box.) T0 RTS Government PUBLIC AW Cl Constructive Trust Asbestos Insurance_ Attorney Grievance Contempt COmmerc?al PROPERTY El Civil Rights - EJ Dist Ct Mm Appeal Conversion [3 Adverse Code/0rd Financiai El Defamation Breach 0f Lease Elec??On Law . El Grand Jury/Petit Jury CI False Ar re st/Im risonment Detmue EEminent Domain/Condemn. El Miscellaneous Fraud 3:23:23? 15331? Environment Ci Perpetuate Testimony/Evidence El Lead Paint - DOB of Forcible Batty/Detainer Ei Req- . Youngest Eireclosure Mandamus Sentence Transfer Loss of Consortium Commercial Cl Prisoner Ri Set Aside Deed l3 Malicious Prosecution lj'ReSIdential 3 Ci Special Adm. - Atty CI Malpractice?Medical Currency or Vehicle PUbliC Info. Records Ci Subpoena Issue/Quash Cl Malpractice-Professional El Deed of Trust Quarantine/IsolatiOn Ci Trust Established Ci Misrepresentation Land Installments CI WP it Of Certior 31'1 i3 Trustee Substitution/Removal Ears: operate 1 MM CI Nuisaiice . 81:13]? 0f Eegemdption ?giQpiracy 13 Peace Order bil' a omen on El Pig??i?ig?im? Ci Forfeiture of Property CI - EQSJITY I eci?c Performance Personal Item FLSA El BEFEIOW 1.1 gmen oxic Tort Fraudulent Conveyance FML A El quita . Relief TresPass Landlord?Tenant Workers? Compensation $11110th Rehef Wrongful Death Wrongful Termination OTI-Iali?leam us RA goAbslii?estoET Ownership INDEPENDENT Accountin Breach a 1 l3 Friendly Surt [j usi ess and ommercial Quiet Title Cl Eon essed gment DRent Escrow [j Assumption of Jurisdiction El Grantor in Possession Cl Authorized Sale - Ma land Insurance Administ tion . .W ta - E'lscsillanewsM 0 Tenant Holding Over El Body Attachment Issuance Speci?c Transaction Fraud Commission Issuance Structured Settlements (Rev. 04/2017) Page 1 0f 3 Case Document 2-1 Filed 10/23/19. Page EXISTING CASE: RELIEF (Check All that-Apply) . Abatement [3 Earnings Withholding Jud gment-Interest Return of Property Administrative Action El Enrollment Judgment?Summary Cl Sale of Property Appomtment of Receiver Expungement [EILiability Speci?c Performance Findings 0f Fact - El Oral Examination Writ?Error Coram Nobis Cl Asset Determ [nation - Foreclosure El Order Cl Writ?Execution El Attachment b/f Judgment Injunction Ownership of Property Writ?'Gamish Property Cease Desist Order CI udgment-Af?davit DPal-??on of Property Cl Writ?Gamish Wages El Condemn - El Judgment-Attorney Fees? Peace Order 13 Writ?Habeas Corpus [j contempt Judgment-Confessed El Possession I a ?Int?Mandamus Court Costs/Fees Judgment?Consent ElProduetion of Records Wnt?Possessmn El Damages?Compensatory udgment-Deelaratory Cl Quarantine/Isolation Order Damages-Punitive CI udgment-Defau lt DReinstatement of Employment 13? you indicated Liability above, mark one or" the following. This information is so; an admission and may not be used for any purpose other than Track Assignment. CILiability is cenceded. DLiability is not conceded, but is not seriously in dispute. [EILiability is seriously in diSpute. MONETARY DAMAGES (Do not include Attorney's Fees, Interest, or Court Costs)- El Under $10,000 El$10,000 $30,000 El $30,000 $100,000 El Over $100,000 Cl Medical Bills El Wage Loss Property Damages ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORNIATION Is this case appropriate for referral to an ADR process under Md. Rule 17-101? (Check all that apply) - A. Mediation DYes C. Settlement Conference IYes [No 1B. Arbitration - DYes- END D. Neutral Evaluation DYes SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS If a Spoken Language Interpreter is needed, check here and attach form If you require an accommodation for a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, check here and attach form - ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL With the exception of Baltimore County and Baltimore City, please fill in the estimated LENGTH OF TRIAL . (Case will be tracked accordingly) El 1/2 day of trial or less El 3 days of trial time 1-day oftrial time . More than 3 days of trial time El 2 days of 'trial time . BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM For all jurisdictions, if Business and Technology track designation under Md. Rule 16-308 is requested, attach o'duplicate copy of complaint and check one of the tracks below. El Expedited? Trial within 7 months of CI Standard - Trial within 18 months of Defendant's response Defendant's response EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED (Rev. 04/2017) Page 2 of3 Case Document 2-1 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 3 TECHNOLOGICAL CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR) FOR PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT T0 AST A RESOURCES JUDGES under Md. Rule 16?302, artach a duplicate copy ofcomplaint and check whether assignment to an AS TAR is requested. El Expedited- T1 ial within 7 months of CI Standard Trial within 18 months-of Defendant's response . Defendant?s response IF YOU ARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN BALTIMORE CITY, OR BALTIMORE COUNTY, PLEASE FILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE BOXBELOW CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY (CHECK ONLY ONE) El Expedited Trial 60. to 120 days from notice. Non-juiy matters Civil?Short Trial 210 days from ?rst answer. Civil?Standard . Trial 360 days from ?rst answer. Custom . Scheduling order entered by individual judge. Asbestos Special scheduling order. Lead Paint Fill in: Birth Date of youngest plaintiff El Tax Sale Percolosures Special schedulingorder. El Mortgage Foreclosures No' scheduling order. CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY Expedlted Attachment Before Judgment, uec1a1 12111.11 Judg1nent(S imple (Trial Date?90 days) Administrative Appeals, District Court Appeals and Juryr Tri al Prayers, Guardianship, Injunction, Mandamus. [3 Standard - Condemnation, Confessed Judgments (Vacated), Contract, Employment (Trial Date-240 days) Related Cases, Fraud and MisrepreSentation, International Tort, Motor Tort, Other Personal Injury, Workers' Compensation Cases. El Extended Standard Asbestos, Lender Liability, Professional Malpractice, Serious Motor Tort 01 (Trial Date?345 days) Personal Injury Cases (medical expenses and wage loss of$l00, 000, expert 1 and out-of?state witnesses (parties), and trial of ?ve or more days), State Insolvency. Complex I Class Actions, Designated Toxic Tort, Major nst1uct10rI Contr ajor (Trial Date?450 days) Product Liabilities, Other Complex Case. August 28, 2019 Date are of Counsel Party Whiteford, ,TaylorAd?dPgseSston, 7 St. Paul St. Allen B. Honick, Esq. Baltimore 21202 rm ante City ?State Zip Code concur?1102 (Rev. 04/2017) Page 3 0'13