Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RUDOLPH RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, IS Civ -against? COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND The CITY OF NEW NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORIZON HEALTH INC, DR. LANDIS BARNES DOE #140, i -- Defendants. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is an action to recover money damages arising out of a violation of Plaintiffs? rights as secured by the Fourth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendmentsto the United States Constitution, and the laws of the State of New York. Plaintiff, Rudolph, Richardson, was deprived of his constitutional and common law rights, when the individual defendants while acting alone and/or in concert, unlawfully caused the plaintiff to be severely injured while he was in inmate at the Manhattan Detention Complex, a New York City Jail. PARTIES 2. Rudolph Richardson is a citizen of the United States of America. At the time of this incident he resided at the Manhattan Detention Complex in New York County 3. Defendant, The City of New York (?the City?), is a municipal corporation that, Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 15 through the Department of Correction operates a number of detention jails. Correctional Health Services is a unit within the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene a City agency. DOHMH, through CHS, is responsible for the provision of medical care and services to prisoners con?ned in the City jails, including MDC. DOC and are also responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all DOC and clinical personnel, including the defendants referenced herein. 4. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, defendant Corizon Health, Inc. (?Corizon?) provided medical care to prisoners in DOC correctional facilities, including MDC. In carrying out its duties, Corizon was required to ensure that the personnel it employed at MDC complied with all DOC and policies, procedures, directives, and protocols in addition to all relevant local, state, and federal statutes, and regulations. 5. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, defendant Dr. Landis Barnes, was a physician employed by the City or Corizon and assigned to MDC. Between June 2, 2014 and June 5, 2014, he was responsible for the provision of appropriate medical care to patients at MDC, including Mr. Richardson. The Medical Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. 6. At all times relevant hereto, defendants Jane/John Doe 1-10 (?the Of?cer Defendants?) were of?cers of DOC, including but not limited to assistant deputy wardens, captains, and correction of?cers, between June 2, 2014 and June 5, 2014, who participated in and/or had knowledge of and delayed and/or denied Mr. Richardson from getting adequate medical care. At all times relevant hereto, the Of?cer Defendants were acting under Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 15 color of state law and within the scope of their capacities as agents, servants, and employees of defendant City. The Of?cer Defendants are sued in their individual capacities. 7. Defendants Jane/John Does #1-10 are sued under ?ctitious designations because plaintiff has not been able to ascertain their names and, where relevant, shield numbers, notwithstanding reasonable efforts to do so. JURISDICTION 8. This action arises under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 and New York state common law and constitution. 9. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a) (3) and 1.3 67(a) and the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. 10. The acts complained of occurred in the Southern District of New York, and venue is lodged in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 11. Plaintiff demands trial by jury in this action. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. Defendant, the City of New York is a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized by law to maintain a department to supervise prisoners housed in New York City jails, which act as its agent in the area of law enforcement Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 15 and for which it is ultimately responsible. The defendant, the City of New York assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a correctional of?cers and the employment of correctional of?cers as said risks attach to the public consumers of the services provided by the DOC. On or about June 4. 2014. at approximately seven in the evening, Plaintiff, Rudolph Richardson, was a prisoner at the MDC. He was in the ?common area? with other inmates from his cell block, when he asked an Of?cer if he could return to his cell to use the bathroom. 14. Mr. Richardson was given permission to return to his cell to use the bathroom. The door of his cell was opened for him by an Of?cer who had control over the equipment that electronically opened and closed the cells. 15. The toilet bowl in Mr. Richardson?s cell is located directly next to the cell door. while Mr. Richardson was using the toilet, an Of?cer suddenly and negligently closed the door to Mr. Richardson?s cell, causing the ?ngers of Mr. Richardson?s left hand to get caught in said door. 16. AS a result of the negligent actions of this Of?cer, a portion of Mr. Richardson?s ?nger became detached from his left hand. 17. Mr. Richardson immediately began bleeding profusely. Confused and in shock, Mr. Richardson quickly returned to the common area to try inform the Of?cer that should have been stationed there of his injury. The Of?cer was not at his station. 18. Fellow inmates were able to get the attention of an Of?cer at another station. That Of?cer attempted to contact the medical clinic. It took more than ten minutes for an of?cer to arrive to escort Mr. Richardson to the medical clinic located inside of MDC. 19. When Mr. Richardson ?nally arrived at the MDC medical clinic, he was not properly Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 15 examined by the doctor, Dr. Landis Barnes. Dr. Barnes brie?y looked at Mr. Richardson?s hand and told him that his ?nger could not be saved. Incredibly, Dr. Barnes informed Mr. Richardson that he should throw the detached portion of his ?nger into the garbage. 20. Mr. Richardson refused to throw his ?nger away and had to ask Dr. Barnes for a solution or ice to preserve his ?nger. Dr. Barnes reluctantly ful?lled this request. 21. Mr. Richardson also had to demand from Dr. Barnes, that he properly wrap his wound so that the bleeding would stop or slow down. Dr. Barnes insisted that the wound was properly wrapped. 22. Mr. Richardson, shocked and concerned about the treatment, or lack thereof he had received, asked to ?ll out an incident report. Mr. Richardson was informed by an Of?cer that he had just made bail and could be released right at that moment. However, if he insisted upon ?lling out a report, they would not release him- 23. Mr. Richardson asked to ?ll out an incident report. He was then placed in a locked room for this purpose. Mr. Richardson completed the incident report in a matter of minutes but was kept in this locked room without proper medical treatment or care. Mr. Richardson was obviously in need of immediate and specialized care, so that his ?nger could be saved. Instead, Plaintiff was kept inside of a locked room without havingreceived any proper medical treatment, merely because he requested that the incident be properly documented. 24. Eventually, Mr. Richardson?s injured hand was placed in handcuffs, and he was placed bleeding, and in immense pain inside of a Correctional vehicle, and transported to Bellevue Hospital. 25. At Bellevue Hospital Plaintiff underwent surgery to reattach his ?nger, and to repair Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 6 of 15 the broken bones in another ?nger. Plaintiff has to attend physical therapy and has had to follow up procedures due to an infection in the detached finger. It is unclear at this point if there will be further procedures or if Mr. Richardson will regain full and proper use of his left hand. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, Mr. Richardson suffered a violation of civil rights, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of liberty, medical bills, injury, pain, suffering, emotional distress and mental anguish. 27. A notice of claim was served on the Comptroller of the City of New York and at least thirty days have elapsed since the service of such notice and adjustment and/or payment has been neglected and/or refused. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Against All Defendants)Violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment 28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 29. By reason of the foregoing, and by confining Mr. Richardson to a locked room inside of the medical clinic, all while denying him access to adequate medical care, failing to provide medical care and/or exhibiting deliberate indifference to Mr. Richardson?s rights by not acting on information which indicated that unconstitutional acts were occurring, the Officers and Medical Defendants deprived Mr. Richardson of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 7 of 15 rights guaranteed by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Of?cers and Medical Defendants acted at all relevant times hereto willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and/or with such reckless disregard of consequences as to reveal a conscious indifference to the clear risk of serious injury to Mr. Richardson that shocks the conscience. The medical treatment was so grossly incompetent and inadequate that it shocks the conscience and constituted deliberate indifference to Nit. Richardson?s fundamental constitutional rights. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of Mr. Richardson?s constitutional rights, he suffered the damages hereinbefore alleged. 30. The Individual Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and of?cial capacities and within the scope of their respective employments as Department of Corrections of?cers, agents, employees, and/or contracted personnel. Said acts by Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers. Said Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Mr. Richardson of his constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Medical Malpractice (Against the Medical Defendants and Corizon) 31. The Medical Defendants were employed, retained and/or contracted with by the City to provide medical care to all inmates in the care and custody of the City at the Manhattan Detention Complex, including Mr. Richardson. The Medical Defendants agreed and purported to Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 8 of 15 provide medical care and services to inmates in at the Manhattan Detention Complex, including Mr. Richardson, from June 2, 2014 until June 5, 2014. 32. The Medical Defendants and defendant Corizon held themselves out as possessing the proper degree of learning and skill necessary to render medical care, treatment, and services in accordance with good and accepted medical practice, and that they undertook to use reasonable care and diligence in the care and treatment of inmates, including Mr. Richardson. 33. The Medical Defendants and Corizon were negligent and careless, acted contrary to sound medical practice, and committed acts of medical malpractice against Mr. Richardson. 34. Corizon, as employer of some or all of the Medical Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 35. As a result of defendants? medical malpractice, negligence, carelessness, and unskillfulness, Mr. Richardson sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. 36. A certi?cate of merit pursuant to Section 3012-a of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules is annexed hereto. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress gAgainst the Of?cer Defendants, the Medical Defend-ants, and Corizon) 37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 38. Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally and recklessly causing severe emotional distress to Mr. Richardson. Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 9 of 15 39. By reason of the foregoing, defendants are liable to plaintiff for the intentional in?iction of emotional distress. 40. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, and employees were responsible for the intentional in?iction of emotional distress suffered by Mr. Richardson. Defendant, Corizon, as employer of some or all of the Medical Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondent superior- 41. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress {Against the Individual Defendants and Corizon) 42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 43. By reason of the foregoing, defendants are liable to Mr. Richardson for the negligent in?iction of emotional distress. 44. Defendants and their of?cers, agents, servants, and employees were responsible for this negligent in?iction of emotional distress. Defendant Corizon, as employer of some or all of the Medical Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondent superior. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 10 of 15 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Eligth Hiring/Training/Retention of Employment Services (Against Cerium) 46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 47. Defendant Corizon owed a duty of care to Mr. Richardson to prevent the conduct alleged, because under the same or similar circumstances a reasonable, prudent, and careful person?should have anticipated that injury to Mr. Richardson or to those in a like situation would probably result from the foregoing conduct. 48. Upon information and belief, all of the Medical Defendants were un?t and incompetent for their positions. 49. Corizon knew or should have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence that the Medical Defendants that it employed were potentially dangerous. Corizon?s negligence in screening, hiring, training, disciplining, and retaining these defendants proximately caused plaintiff?s injuries. 50. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. 10 Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 11 of 15 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision (Department of Corrections, City of New York) 51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein 52- The City of New York and its employees, servants and/or agents acting within the scope of their employment did negligently hire, retain, train and supervise the defendants, individuals who were un?t for the performance of their duties on June 4, 2014, at the aforementioned location. 53. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Negligence (Against the Individual Defendants and Co-rizon) 54. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 55. Defendants owed a duty of care to Mr. Richardson as an inmate at the Manhattan Detention Complex. 56. Defendants breached the duty of care that they owed to Mr. Richardson by not properly performing their duties, by not being at their correct posts, by negligently closing a cell door, by denying him access to adequate medical care, failing to provide medical treatment, 11 Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 12 of 15 and/or otherwise neglectinghis medical needs. 57. Defendants? breach of their duty of care was the proximate cause of Mr. Richardson?s serious injuries, including severe pain and suffering. 58. Defendant Corizon, as employer of all or some of the Medical Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondent superior. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. EIGHTH CLAIM OR RELIEF New York State Constitution, Art. [j 12 against the Individual Defendants and Corizon) 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 61. By reason of the foregoing, by negligently, carelessly and recklessly supervising lVir. Richardson and by denying Mr. Richardson adequate medical care, defendants deprived him of rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every New Yorker by Article I 12 of the New York Constitution. 62. Defendants acted under pretense and color of state law and in their individual and of?cial capacities and within the scope of their respective employments as City and/or Department Of Corrections and/or of?cers, agents, or employees. Said acts bydefendants were beyond the sc0pe of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers, and said defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the speci?c intent to 12 Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 13 of 15 deprive Mr. Richardson of his constitutional rights secured by Article I 12 of the New York Constitution. 63. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, and employees were responsible for the deprivation of Mr. Richardson?s state constitutional rights. 64. Defendant Corizon, as employer of some or all of the Medical Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against defendants as follows: 1. Awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 2. Awarding punitive damages against the Individual Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. Awarding plaintiff reasonable attorneys? fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 4. Directing some other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper, together with attorney?s fees, interest, costs and disbursements of this action. 13 Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 14 of 15 DATED January 23, 2015 New York, New York 14 Christine Delince, Esq The Law Of?ces of Onaodowan Delince, PLLC 225 w. 34th Street 9th Floor New York, NY 10122 (866) 374-9361 ph. (917) 238-9332 111. Attorney?s for Plaintiff Rudolph Richardson Case Document 1 Filed 01/26/15 Page 15 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RUDOLPH RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, 15 Civ against CERTIFICATE OF MERIT The CITY OF NEW NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CORIZON HEALTH INC, DR. LAN DIS BARNES DOB #1-10, Defendants. CHRISTINE DELINCE, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of the New York, hereby affirms, pursuant to CPLR 2106: 1. That I am a member of the ?rm of ONAODOWAN DELINCE, PLLC. 2. I have reviewed the facts of this case and have consulted with at least one physician who is licensed to practice law in this State, or any other State, and I reasonably believe that said physician is knowledgeable as to the relevant issues involved in this particular action, and I have concluded on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of this action. Dated: New York, New York January 23, 2015 I. - Wu Jr? Christine Delince, Esq. 15