inmate death lawsuit

8/3/2019 Inmate death lawsuit

1/19

V-^- - %

Lynn S. Walsh, OSB#924955email: walshff ieuropa.com209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400Portland, Oregon 97204Telephone: 503-790-2772Facsimile: 503-227-6840

Attorney for PlaintiffFlial9IC'1115K^

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DEBORAH GIFFORD individually and as th epersonal representative of the ESTATE OFRICHARD GIFFORD,

Plaintiff,v .

STATE OF OREGON, JEFF PREMO, CHARLOTTEJESKEY, Ph.D., GABRIELLGITNES and CHRISTINFARRELL,

Defendants .

NOCV11 6417 HOCOMPLAINTCivil Rights Action (42 U.S.C. 1983);Americans with Disabilities Act (42U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); Rehabilitation Act(29 U.S.C. 794)DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Thiscase is about the tragic and untimely death of Richard Gifford, a young man in hisearly twenties, who had only ten days left on his sentence when his life ended as a result of thedeliberate indifference of the personnel of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC). Mr.Gifford suffered from a pervasive developmental disorder. Even though ODOC was notified ofMr. Gifford's disability, he was denied necessary accommodations, and was placed inPagel COMPLAINT

WdZ2

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB# 924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]

Case 6:11-cv-06417-HO Document 1 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 19 Page ID#: 1


2/19

disciplinarysegregation for the vast majority of his five month sentence where his mentalhealth quicklydeteriorated. Although guards and other inmates requested mental healthtreatment on his behalf, no meaningfultreatment was ever provided. In addition to denyingMr. Gifford reasonable accommodation, the Oregon Department of Corrections' personnelcompletely failed to follow its own policies and procedures that are designed to preventunexpected in-custody deaths. On May 5, 2010, ten days before his original release date, Mr.Gifford died from an injection of an unknown toxin.

JURISDICTION

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 12101 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. 1331,1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).

VENUE

2. Venue is proper within the District of Oregon because all of the events giving rise tothis claimoccurred in this judicial district, and all defendants reside in this judicial district. 28U.S.C. 1391(b). Specifically, all of the acts and practices alleged herein occurred at OregonDepartment of Corrections Facilities inWilsonvilleand Salem, Oregon.

PARTIES

3. PlaintiffDeborah Gifford isan adult currently residing in LaneCounty, Oregon. Ms.Gifford is the mother of decedent RichardGifford, is the personal representative of the Estateof Richard Gifford, and brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of the Estate of RichardGifford.

4. Defendant State of Oregon operates the Oregon Department of Corrections

Page 2 COMPLAINT lynns. walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790 -2772

[email protected]



3/19

facilities. At all times relevant, the State of Oregonwas obligated to accommodate prisonerswith disabilities lodged in its facilities.

5. Defendant Jeff Premo is the superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP)and an employee of the Oregon Department of Corrections. He is sued in his individualcapacity. Assuperintendent, Mr. Premo is ultimately responsible for all aspects of a smoothrunning institution. As such, he is responsible for implementing and enforcing all of ODOC'spolicies, procedures, and rules at OSP. Atall times relevant, Mr. Premo was acting undercolor of s ta te law.

6. Charlotte Jeskey, Ph.D., is employed as a psychologist for ODOC and is sued in herindividual capacity. At all times relevant, she was acting under color of state law.

7. Christin Farrell is a mental health worker who is employed by ODOC and is sued inher individual capacity. At all times relevant, she was acting under color of state law.

8. Gabriell Gitnes is a mental health worker who is employed by ODOC and is sued inher individual capacity. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology, and as of the dateof Mr. Gifford'sdeath, had been a Mental HealthSpecialistat ODOC for fiveyears. AlthoughMs.Gifford has no license to practice psychology,ODOC has entrusted her to diagnose andtreat behavioral, emotional, and mental disorders. Atall times relevant, Ms. Gitness was actingunder color of s ta te law.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. RichardGiffordwas charged with bank robbery for stealing approximately $1,200from a bank on July 21, 2006. At the time of the robbery, Mr. Gifford was 18 years old and was

Page 3 COMPLAINT lynns. walsh,osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



4/19

living with his mother.10. Mr. Gifford was lodged in the Lane County Jail during the pendency of his case.

Shortly after arriving there, he began acting erratically.11. Mr. Gifford's defense attorney arranged for a psychologist's evaluation that took

place over three days, December 4-5, 2006, and December 7, 2006 and was performed byDavid Norway, Ph.D. Dr. Norway diagnosed Mr. Gifford with "a pervasive developmentaldisorder, or autism spectrum disorder." In addition he was diagnosed with a cognitivedisorder, and possible oppositional defiant disorder.

12. The U.S. District Court Judge that presided over Mr. Gifford's criminal casesentenced him to 41 months in federal prison, and recommended t o th e Bureau of Prisons(BOP) that Mr. Gifford be committed to a Federal Psychiatric Medical Facility.

13. Unfortunately, the BOP declined to follow the Judge's recommendation, andhoused Mr. Gifford in general population during his stay at BOP.

14. inmates with developmental disabilities, such as Mr. Gifford, have an incompleteunderstanding of prison culture and difficulty understanding and adapting to prison routinesand regulations. Without services and supports, these inmates are more frequently disciplinedthan other inmates when staff assumes they are capable of responding to prison routines,regulations, and expectations. In short, inmates with developmental disabilities such as autismspectrum disorder do not do well in prisons.

15. Due to Mr. Gifford's disability, he was unable to co-exist with the other prisoners inthe general population, and was eventually moved to a special housing unit at BOP. He spent a

Page 4 COMPLAINT lynns. walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400Portland, OR 97204

503-790 [email protected]



5/19

vast amount of time in the special housing unit, where he received a monthly visit by apsychologist, and other psychological treatment when requested.

16. Mr. Gifford completed his federal sentence in December 2009 and was transferredto the Oregon Department of Corrections to serve approximately five months on a statecharge.

17. On November 24,2009, beforeMr. Gifford's arrival at ODOC, the BOP faxed their"In-Transit Data Form" to ODOC. The In-Transit Data Form notified ODOC that Mr. Giffo rd had

mental health concerns, had spent th e last six months in the Special Housing Unit, had sufferednumerous head traumas in the past, and had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

18 . Mr. Gifford was transferred to ODOC on December 18, 2009.19. Apparently, no one at ODOCever read th e BOP In-Transit form. ODOC placed Mr.

Gifford in general population. ODOC personnel remained oblivious to Mr. Gifford's mentaldisorder.

20. Upon admission to ODOC, inmates are screened at the Coffee Creek CorrectionalFacility to determine their health and mental health status. As part of th e screening process,Mr. Gifford was given a self-administered test called the Personality Assessment Inventory(PAI) which provides information relevant for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning andscreening for psychopathology. The PAI provides a number of validity indices that are designedto provide an assessment of factors that could distort the results of testing. ln~Mr. Gifford'scase, the validity indices indicated tha t the tes t results were not valid. In fact, across the top ofevery page of the PAI are the words "WARNING: VALIDITY SCALES INDICATE HYPOTHESES MAY

Page 5 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh,osb#924955 209S.W. Oak St.,#400Portland, OR 97204

[email protected]



6/19

NOT BE VALID." The report also stated "additional screening needed" and that Mr. Gifford'sbehavior warranted "further inquiry." Even though the testing was invalid and indicated thatMr. Gifford's behavior warranted follow-up, there was never any meaningful follow-up.Defendant Charlotte Jeskey, Ph.D. interviewed Mr.Gifford on December 29, 2009, yet shecompletely failed to identify that Mr. Gifford suffered from a pervasive developmentaldisability.

21. Had Ms. Jeskey read Mr. Gifford's file, she would have seen the BOP In-Transit DataForm indicating that Mr. Gifford suffered from a mental disability, and she would have seenthe Judge's Sentencing Order recommending Mr. Gifford be lodged in a psychiatric facility. Or,had she followed up with the additional screening as recommended by the testing, she wouldhave identified his developmental disability. Had Mr. Gifford's disability been properlyidentified, he would have been classified as MH-2 per ODOC policy.

22. Mr. Gifford was transferred to the Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) on January 3,2010 to serve ou t th e r emainder of his sen tence.

23. During Mr. Gifford's four months at OSP, he was charged with 14 incidents ofmisconduct. In response to these incidents, ODOC held disciplinary hearings which Mr. Gifforddeclined to attend. As a result , he was sanctioned which included being lodged in th eDisciplinary Segregation Unit, and losing all privileges.

24. Inmates in disciplinary segregation are separated from the rest of the inmatepopulation, have very limited human interaction, and receive minimal or no programming. It isan extreme isolation environment designed to exert maximum control over th e individual.

Page 6 COMPLAINT lynn s.walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



7/19

Upon information and belief, Mr.Gifford spent more than 23 and one-half hours in his cellevery day.

25. Oregon Administrative Rule 291-105-0026 provides that Behavioral Health Services(BHS) be notified when an inmatewith a developmental disability, such asMr. Gifford, isplaced in disciplinary segregation or is scheduled fora disciplinary hearing. BHS may thendetermine whether an evaluation isnecessary, and, among other things,whether the sanctionsare contraindicated or whether they should be modified. BecauseDr. Jeskeyfailed toappropriately classify Mr. Gifford (or read his file), he did not have the benefit of a BHSevaluation.

26. As a resultof Dr. Jeske/s failure to identifyMr. Gifford's disability, he was placed indisciplinary segregation from December 25,2009(while he wasstill at Coffee Creek), andexceptfor 12days in February, 2010,he remained indisciplinary segregation until his death onMay5, 2010. Healso lost all privileges for long periods of time, includingyard time.

27. Had Mr. Gifford been properlyclassified as MH-2, upon admission to segregationthe computerwould have generated a notification to Medical, Behavioral Health Services(BHS), and Security. TheSegregated Inmate Policy (#P-E-09) requires a mental healthprofessional to assessMr. Gifford within 24hours. The policy's intent isto "alert security staffin DSU, Medical, and BHS staff there is a high need inmate in that location in an effort toprevent deterioration and provideearly intervention." Because Mr. Gifford was improperlyclassified, the purpose of the policywas thwarted.

28. Mr. Gifford's mental condition rapidly deteriorated while he was lodged inthe

Page 7 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh,osb# 92495520 9 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



8/19

Disciplinary Segregation Unit (DSU).29. Following an incident on April 6, 2010 in which Mr. Gifford flooded his cell and

covered the front of his cell with sheets and a mattress, the corrections officers askedBehavioral Health Services to come see Mr. Gifford. Defendant Christin Farrell, MA, MFT, metwith Mr.Gifford. She accused Mr. Gifford of "feigning symptoms in order to get his DR'sexcused." DR's are disciplinary rule violations. Ms. Farrell failed to do anything for Mr.Gifford.

30. On April 11, 2010, the corrections officers were concerned that Mr. Gifford mightharm himself, so they placed him in a safety smock (designed so that it may not be used as anaid to suicide), gave him a safety blanket, and placed him on Close Supervision Status.

31. On April 12, 2011, Mr. Gifford told th e corrections staff that he felt suicidal.32. On April 13, Mr. Gifford again informed corrections staff that he was suicidal. The

corrections officers then notified the medical department who determined that anexamination was not necessary because Gifford was "simply bored and trying to manipulatestaff to relieve his boredom."

33. It is well known that it is a serious mistake for prison officials to ignore inmates andtheir para-suicidal behaviors for fear of reinforcing th e manipulation. It is common for inmateswho manipulate their situation by these threats or gestures to escalate their behavior in anattempt to achieve their goal and, in so doing, to die either accidentally or by miscalculatinghow th e staffwill respond. Yet, the OSP medical department simply ignored Mr. Gifford.

34. It is also well known that inmates kept in segregation are at a higher risk of suicidethan those kept in th e general population.

Page 8 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb#92495520 9 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790 -2772

[email protected]



9/19

35. Sometime inApril, Mr.Gifford sent goodbye letters to his step-grandmother TerryLuther, his mother, his half-brothers and even one for the family dog. All of the letters weredelivered to Ms. Luther's home. The letters described psychotic episodes and stated that hewas going to die in custody. He told a younger brother that now he would be in charge. Hisletter to the familydog stated that he was not going to be able to bring him a bone.

36. Ms. Luther immediately notified her son Chris Gifford, Richard's stepfather,regarding the letters. Chris Gifford was extremely alarmed by the content of the letters, andimmediately drove from Oakland Californiato the Oregon State Penitentiary inSalem so thathe could visit Richard. It is believed that he arrived at OSPsometime in April, 2010.

37. The staff at OSPwould not allow Chris Gifford to visit his stepson. They told him hehad to fill out the proper paperwork, and that it would take sixweeks to be approved eventhough Mr. Gifford's release date was less than six weeks away. Chris Gifford submitted thevisitation application as instructed.

38. After several days of attempting to visit, ChrisGifford spoke with RichardGifford'scounselor, Marshall Buccholz. Chris Gifford gave Mr. Buccholz a letter to deliver to Richard.Mr. Buccholz indicated that Richard was delirious and not making sense.

39. On April 19, 2010, the corrections officers again requested BHS see Richard,presumably because Chris Gifford had informed Mr. Buchholz ofthe disturbing letters Richardhad sent his family. He was seen by Defendant Gabrielle Gitness B.S.,who did no t assess,evaluate, or provide any treatment to Richard. She failed to do a Suicide RiskAssessment asrequired by th e Segregation Policy, #P-E-09. She also failed to abide by the requirements of

Page 9 COMPLAINT lynn s.walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400Portland, OR 97204

[email protected]



10/19

the Suicide Prevention Policy, #P-G-05. She did speak withMr. Buccholz regardingreconnecting Richard with his family. Mr. Buccholz admitted he had had regular contact withRichard'sdad. Yet, the prison officials continued to deny Chrisvisitation with Richard.

40. Chris Gifford stayed in Salem, and did not return to Oakland. He continued toattempt to visit Richard. He went to the prison numerous times, and was denied visitation oneach and every occasion.

41. Other inmates, noticing Mr. Gifford's deterioration, sent a kite to mental healthrequesting mental health treatment for Mr. Gifford. Again, no mental health treatment wasprovided to Mr. Gifford.

42. Mr. Gifford's mental deterioration continued until his death on May5, 2010 byaninjection of an unknown toxin. Hewas originally scheduled to get out of prison on May15,2010 at the age of 22.

Allegations of Supervisor Liability43. The Oregon Administrative Rules on disciplinarysegregation has plenty of

safeguards so ifan inmate beginsto deteriorate (whether or not he was properly classified),the deterioration will be detected, and appropriate action can be taken. The ODOC staff failedto comply with the administrative rules as follows:

a. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 291-11-0030) require that each disciplinarysegregated inmate be vis ited daily by a member of medical staff. The medical staff failed toperform this task.

b. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 291-11-0030) require that an assessment be

Page 10 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb# 924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



11/19

made by a Special Needs Inmate Evaluation Committee on each inmate in continuousdisciplinary segregation at least every 30 days. The Special Needs Inmate Committee did notdiscuss or assess Mr. Gifford's case until April 21, 2010, after spending more than 52continuous days in disciplinary segregation. They failed to implement any changes before Mr.Gifford's death.

c. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 291-11-0030) require that every inmate indisciplinary segregation status be checked at least once every 30 minutes. The records indicatethat the guards did not comply with this rule.

d. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 291-11-0030) require that each disciplinarysegregation cell be searched at least twice monthly. The records indicate that the guards didnot comply with this rule.

44. The guards at OSPhave a history of not performing tier checks as required by OAR291-11-0030. In fact, the Oregon State Police conducted an investigation back in November2006 after the death of an inmate housed in the Intensive Management Unit. The OregonState Police investigation revealed that officerswere no t conducting tier checks, and thenfalsifying logs to indicate that the tier checks were completed. The investigation furtherindicated that the officers were sometimes too busy, yet other times they were socializing andplaying paper football instead of doing tier checks. Upon information and belief, some ofthose same guards were working in th e DSU during th e times that Mr. Gifford was lodgedthere. Mr. Premo was the assistant superintendent at the time.

45. Presumably, as a result of th e 2006 inmate death and subsequent investigation, the

Page 11 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb# 924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



12/19

Oregon State Penitentiary installed an electronic system called Guard Plus where thecorrections officers carry a wand that records th e date and time when they walk past a certainspot on the t ier. This system is designed to prevent th e falsification of logs.

46. On the day of Mr. Gifford's death, the Guard Plus logs indicate there was a span ofover three hours where the guards did no t check on the inmates at all. The records indicatethat in the time immediately preceding Mr. Gifford's death, the time periods between roundswere 192 minutes, 38 minutes , 49 minutes , and 44 minutes.

47. The Guard Plus records from May 4 - May 5, 2010 indicate that rounds were seldomconducted at least every 30 minutes, and that 100 or more minutes between tier checks wascommon.

48. OSP personnel's failure to abide by its own rules, policies and procedures led to thedeath of Mr. Gifford by an injection of an unknown toxin.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Americans with Disabilities Act and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against Defendant Stateof Oregon)

49. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 - 48.50. The prisons comprising of the Oregon Department of Corrections have been

recipients of federal funds, and are thus covered by 504's mandate, which requires recipientsof federal monies to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities in their facilities,program activities, and services, and reasonably modify such facilities, services, and programsto accomplish this purpose.

Page 12 COMPLAINT LYNN s- WAlSH


13/19

51. The prisons comprising of the Oregon Department of Corrections are public entitieswithin th e meaning of Title II of the ADA, and provide programs, services or activities to thegeneral public. Title II of the ADA has essentially th e same mandate as Section 504.

52. At all t imes relevant to this action, Mr. Gifford was a qualified individual within themeaning ofTitle II of the ADA and met the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt ofthe services, programs, or activities of ODOC. Specifically, Mr. Gifford suffered from a mentalimpairment that "substantially limitsone or more major lifeactivities," including but notlimited to "learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working." 42 U.S.C.12102.

53. The Oregon Department of Corrections provides housing, medical and mentalhealth treatment, and work and educational programs to prisoners, which comprise programsand services for Section 504 and Title II purposes.

54. Under the ADA, the Oregon Department of Corrections is required to ensure thatdevelopmentally disabled prisoners are properly identified in order to provide reasonableaccommodations to those prisoners. Current studies show that the prevalence rate fordevelopmental disabilities in prison should be at least 2-4%. Therefore, under the ADA, atracking system is necessary to ensure that these disabled prisoners are properly identified.Upon information and belief, ODOC has no tracking or other system to ensure that thesedevelopmentally disabled prisoners are properly identified and accommodated.

55. The Oregon Department of Corrections knew, or should have known, that Mr.Gifford suffered from a developmental disability.

Page 13 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb#924955209S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



14/19

56. TheOregon Departmentof Corrections was deliberately indifferent in failing toprovide Mr. Gifford with reasonable accommodations and other services related to hisdisabilities, and denied him the rights and benefitsaccorded to other inmates, solely byreasonof his disabilities inviolation of the ADA in the following particulars:

a. Underthe ADA, the OregonDepartment of Corrections is required to providestaffassistants to developmentally disabled prisoners in disciplinary proceedings, and also mustensure that those staff assistants or providing the prisoners with effective communication. Mr.Gifford received no such accommodation.

b. TheADA requires that prisonstaff try to counsel developmentally disabled prisonersrather than subjecting them to the disciplinary processwhen they break prison rulesthat theydo not understand. Mr . Gifford received no such accommodation.

c. TheADA requires that developmentally disabled prisonershave accessto adequatemedical and mental health care. Mr. Gifford was denied adequate mental health treatment.

d. The ADA requires that developmentally disabled prisoners have access to ODOCprograms, work and educational opportunities. Mr. Gifford received no such accommodation.

57 .

The Oregon Department of Corrections failed to enforce appropriate policiesandprocedures to ensure the provision of necessary accommodations, modifications, and/orservices to inmates with developmental disabilities.

58 .

The Oregon Department of Corrections failed to train and supervise the prison

Page 14 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh,osb# 924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400Portland, OR 97204

[email protected]



15/19

personnel to provide necessary accommodations, modifications, services and or physicalaccessto inmates with developmental disabilities.

59 .

As a direct and proximate result of ODOC'sforegoing wrongful acts, defendant State ofOregon discriminated against Mr. Gifford on the basis of his disability in violation of theAmericans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, causing him to suffer severe emotionaldistress and causing his eventual death during his incarceration at the Oregon Department ofCorrect ions.

60 .

Accordingly, plaintiff, individually and as the personal representative of the estate ofRichard Gifford, is entitled to economic and non-economic damages in an amount to bedetermined at trial against defendant State of Oregon for th e violations of 42 U.S.C. 12101 etseq., 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and for plaintiffs attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42U.S.C. 12205 and 1988.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Civil Rights 42 USC 1983 against Defendants Jeskey, Farrell and Gitness)61. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-48.62. Defendant Jeskey was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Gifford's serious psychiatric

needs as follows:

a. In failing to diagnose Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;b. In failing to treat Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;

Page 15 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400

Portland, OR 97204503-790-2772

[email protected]



16/19

c. In failing to follow up after the PAI indicated that the results wereinvalid; and

d. In failing to simply read the inmate file (which contained th e BOP In-Transit Data Form) which indicated Mr. Gifford suffered from adevelopmental disability.

63. Defendant Farrellwas deliberately indifferent to Mr. Gifford's serious psychiatricneeds as follows:

a. In failing to diagnose Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;b. In failing to treat Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;c. In failing to read Mr. Gifford's inmate file which indicated that he

suffered from a developmental disability;d. In failing to provide Mr. Gifford with adequate mental health care; ande. In failing to properly assess Mr. Gifford for suicidal or self-injury

tendencies;

64. Defendants Gitness was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Gifford's serious psychiatricneeds:

a. In practicing psychology without a license;b. In failing to read the inmate file that indicated that Mr. Gifford suffered

from a developmental disability;c. In failing to diagnose Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;d. In failing to provide Mr. Gifford with adequate mental health care;

Page 16 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400Portland, OR 97204

[email protected]



17/19

e. in failing to have a qualified mental health professional assess Mr.Gifford after he made statements of self-harm;

f. In failing to treat Mr. Gifford's mental disorders and diseases;g. In failing to properly assess Mr. Gifford for suicidal or self-injury

tendencies;

h. In failing to follow ODOC's suicide prevention policy;i. In allowing Mr.Gifford to remain in isolation in disciplinarysegregation

while he was still at risk fo r suicide; andj. In failing to provide any follow-up whatsoever afterMr. Gifford made

s ta t emen t s o f self-harm.

65. Asa result of defendants Jeskey, Farrell, and Gitness' deliberate indifference, thedefendants violated Mr. Gifford's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment underthe Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

66. As a result of Jeskey, Farrell and Gitness' violation of Mr. Gifford's Constitutionalrights, Mr.Gifford suffered the lossof life, and severe mental pain and suffering. Accordingly,plaintiff Deborah Gifford, individually and as the personal representative of th e Estate ofRichard Gifford, isentitled to economic and non-economic damages against defendants Jeskey,Farrell and Gitness in an amount to be determined at trial for the violations of 42 U.S.C 1983

and for plaintiffs attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

Page 17 COMPLAINT lynn s.walsh, osb#924955209 S.W. Oak St., #400Portland, OR 97204

[email protected]



18/19

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Civil Rights 42 USC 1983 Supervisor Liability against Defendants Premo)67. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-48.68. Defendant Premo was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Gifford's health and safety as

follows:

a. In failing to monitor and review the electronic logs indicating th efrequency of tier checks;

b. In failing to implement and/or enforce OAR 291-11-0030 which requiresthat every inmate in disciplinary segregation status be checked at leastonce every 30 minutes;

c. In failing to implement and/or enforce OAR 291-11-0030 which requiresthat each disciplinary segregated inmate be visited daily by a member ofmedical staff;

d. In failing to implement and/or enforce OAR 291-11-030 which requiresthat each disciplinary segregation cell be searched at least twice amonth; and

e. In failing to implement and/or enforce OAR 291-11-0030 which requiresthat an assessment be made by a Special Needs Inmate EvaluationCommittee on each inmate in continuous disciplinary segregation at leastevery 30 days.

69 . Defendan t Premo knew or s houl d h av e known tha t hi s subordina tes were not

Page 18 COMPLAINT lynns.walsh,osb# 9249550 209S.W. Oak St.,#400Portland, OR 97204

503-790-2772walsh@eu ropa .com



19/19

following or adhering to Oregonthe Administrative Rules, and ODOC Policies and Procedures,and that such failure would result in a serious risk of injury or death to inmates such as Mr.Gifford.

70. As a result of defendants Premo's deliberate indifference, the OSP personnelviolated Mr. Gifford's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the EighthAmendment of the United States Constitution.

71. Asa result of Premo's violation of Mr. Gifford's Constitutional rights, Mr. Giffordsuffered the lossof life, and severe mental pain and suffering. Accordingly, plaintiffDeborahGifford, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Richard Gifford, isentitled to economic and non-economic damages against defendant Premo in an amount to bedetermined at trial for the violationsof 42 U.S.C 1983 and for plaintiffs attorney fees andcosts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief as follows:a. For judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants for her economic and non-

economic damages;

b. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 12205;and

c. For such other and further relief as may appear just and appropriate.DATED: December 19, 2011.

Lynn S.Walsh, OSB #92495(503)790-2772Attorney for plaintiff

Page 19 COMPLAINT LYNN s-WALSH

inmate death lawsuit

Documents