IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C! URT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No, 1:21-cv-383 TIFFANY ADELE KING, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, Plaintiff, vs. CHARLES S. BLACKWOOD, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Orange County, ORANGE COUNTY, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, WILLIAM D. BERRY, JR., in his individual capacity, THOMAS E. LINSTER, II], in his individual capacity, WILMER A. GOMEZ, in his individual capacity, STEFAN H. HOOKER, in his individual capacity, KENDRICK R. MOORE, in his individual capacity, ANTONIO R. CARTNAIL, in his individual capacity, ANGELA K. SPEAR, in her individual capacity, JERRY R. HAWKINS. capacity, JAMISON R. SYKES, in his individual capacity, Defendants. COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded) Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 1 of 61NOW COMES Plaintiff, complaining of Defendants, and alleges and says as follows: INTRODUCTORY STATEM! 1. On March 4, 2020, Maurice King, a thirty-four-year-old black man who was a federal prisoner at the Orange County Detention Center, was fatally tuted in his cell by other prisoners. 2. Mr. King went into his cell followed by another prisoner, who then closed the cell door behind them. Shortly afterward, two other prisoners also entered Mr. King’s cell, visibly restrained someone in the doorway, and were joined by another prisoner. 3. The three prisoners entered and then exited the cell leaving Mr. King and another prisoner inside, closed the door, held the cell door closed and stood guard. Another prisoner watched the events from the common area of the jail pod. 4, Detention officers watched as the prisoners who had orchestrated the assault took tums going into and out of Mr. King’s cell, standing guard, handing things between each other and distracting detention officers away from the cell, and as the prisoner who had committed the initial assault exited Mr. King’s cell and later walked around with a towel covering his head to conceal his injuries. Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 2 of 61After the initial assault, when a detention officer finally entered the pod to conduet rounds, one of the prisoners twice distracted him away from Mr. King’s cell. Both times, the detention officer walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking in. . When another detention officer later twice entered the pod to conduct rounds, he also walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking in — four times —while Mr. King lay in his cell, severely injured and unable to walk. . Detention officers did not protect Mr. King from the assault, did not intervene during the assault, and did not check on Mr. King during rounds after the assault as required by minimum standards law. Once detention officers finally entered Mr. King’s cell — an hour and a half, after the initial assault — where they found Mr. King severely injured, minimally responsive and unable to walk, and where they saw blood on the floor, walls and door of the cell, they did not seek emergency medical attention. . Thirty-nine minutes after finding Mr. King severely injured, minimally responsive and unable to walk, detention officers brought Mr. King out of his cell and shackled his legs, after which they slowly carried him down the stairs, put him in a wheelchair and took him to the jail nurse, who called 911. Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 3 of 6110. Emergency medical personnel responded and transported Mr. King by ambulance to the Duke Emergency Department. Upon his arrival, Mr. King was suffering a major heart attack. He died shortly thereafter. 11. The medical examiner concluded the assault caused Mr. King to suffer cardiac arrest from which he died and classified the death as a homicide. 12. Orange County, Sheriff Blackwood and his Orange County Detention Center staff had a pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners. 13. Mr. King, a particularly vulnerable prisoner, was housed at the Orange County Detention Center with prisoners known to be violent, with little to no supervision from Detention Center staff. 14. On March 4, 2020, Detention Center staff — who could see the detention pod from the control room, both through the glass wall and on the security camera monitors — saw the physical altercation occurring in the doorway to Mr. King’s cell and the suspicious activities that followed, and did not intervene. 15. After the assault, while Mr. King lay in his cell severely injured and unable to walk, the detention officers followed their indifferent practice of conducting “rounds,” continuously walking past Mr. King’s cell without Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 4 of 61looking inside to check on him — in violation of state minimum standards law. 16. Had they looked into Mr. King’s cell as required, the detention officers would have seen that Mr. King was severely injured and was in need of emergency medical attention. 17. Even after finding Mr. King severely injured and unable to walk, an hour and a half after the initial assault, the detention officers did not seek emergency medical attention. 18. Had Defendants acted to protect Mr. King from assault or to intervene during the assault, Mr. King would not have been severely injured. 19. Had Defendants acted to secure medical attention for Mr. King’s emergency medical needs, Mr. King would not have suffered the heart attack which caused his death, or, even if suffered, the heart attack could have been treated effectively so that it would not have been fatal. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. Plaintiff as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, brings this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts committed by Defendants under color of state law which deprived Mr. King of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from deliberate indifference to assaults by other prisoners and to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 5 of 6121. This is also a wrongful death action under N.C.G.S. § 28A-18-2 to recover damages for Mr. King’s wrongful death. 22. Plaintiff's action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and under the Constitution and laws of North Carolina. 23. The Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4). 24, The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 25. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina because all of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Middle District. PARTIES A. Plaintiff 26. Plaintiff Tiffany Adele King is a citizen and resident of Durham County, North Carolina. 27. Plaintiff is the Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King. Plaintiff was duly appointed Administratrix by the Clerk of Superior Court in Durham County file no. 20-E-670. 28. Plaintiff is the mother of Maurice Antoine King (“Maurice King” or “Mr. King”). Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 6 of 6129. Maurice King, a black man, was born on April 24, 1985. He was intellectually disabled. 30. Mr. King was thirty-four years old when he died on March 4, 2020. 31. Mr. King had three children. They were fourteen, twelve and eight years old when Mr. King died. 32. According to the Orange County Detention Center’s medical records, Mr. King suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and asthma and was prescribed propranolol, prazosin, mometasone and albuterol sulfate. 33. Mr. King had been found by psychologist Ginger Calloway in her report dated September 17, 2018 to lack the capacity to proceed to trial due to his intellectual disability, which report had been submitted to the Federal Court and filed under seal 34, On August 29, 2019, the Federal Court accepted Mr. King’s statement through appointed counsel that he was capable of proceeding to trial. 35. On February 4, 2020, through appointed counsel, the Federal Court accepted Mr. King’s plea of guilty to three counts of distribution of cocaine. The Court continued sentencing to May 21, 2020. 36. On the date of his death, March 4, 2020, Mr. King was awaiting sentencing. Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 7 of 61B. Defendants Orange County, Sheriff Blackwood and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America 37. Defendant Orange County is a North Carolina county organized and existing under N.C.G.S. § 153A-10. 38. Defendant Orange County has all of the corporate powers set forth in N.C.G.S. § 153A-I1, including the power to be sued. 39, Defendant Orange County is a “unit” and “local government” under N.C.GS. § 153A-216, et seq. 40. Defendant Orange County has the powers to establish, acquire, erect, repair, maintain, and operate a local confinement facility, also known as a detention facility or jail, under N.C.G.S. § 1534-218. 41. Defendant Orange County maintains and operates the Orange County Detention Center, located at 125 Court Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278. The Detention Center consists of two floors and is designed to house up to 129 prisoners. 42. Defendant Orange County is responsible under N.C.G.S. § 153A-224 for ensuring the Detention Center custodial personnel provide continuous supervision to protect prisoners from assault by other prisoners. 43. Defendant Orange County is responsible under N.C.G.S. § 153A-225 for developing an adequate medical plan to provide medical care to prisoners at Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 8 of 61the Orange County Detention Center, including the medical supervision of prisoners and emergency medical care for prisoners to the extent necessary for their health and welfare. See Stockton v.Wake County, 173 F.Supp.3d 292, 303-04 (E.D.N.C. 2016). 44. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Orange County had final policymaking authority over the provision of medical care and emergency medical care to prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. See Vaught v, Ingram, 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18231 at [*8-12], No.5:10-CT-3009-FL (E.D.N.C. 2011). 45. Defendant Orange County is sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an official policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the safety of prisoners from assault by other prisoners and to the serious medical needs of prisoners, like Maurice King, who were victims of assault by other prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 46. Defendant Charles . Blackwood is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina. 47. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is the duly elected Sheriff of Orange County. 48, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is responsible for the care and custody of the prisoners of the Orange County Detention Center under N.C.G.S. § 162-22. Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 9 of 6149. Atall times relevant to this action, there existed an intergovernmental agreement between the United States Marshals Service and the Orange County Detention Center, signed by Defendant Sheriff Blackwood on September 28, 2016, in which Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had agreed for a per diem rate to “accept and provide for the secure custody, safekeeping, housing, subsistence and care of Federal detainees in accordance with all state and local laws, standards, regulations, policies and court orders applicable to the operation of the Facility.” 50. The intergovernmental agreement further obligated Defendant Sheriff Blackwood to provide medical care to federal prisoners in the Detention Center and required, “In the event of an emergency, the Local Government shall proceed immediately with necessary medical treatment.” 51. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had an affirmative nondelegable duty under N.C.GSS. § 153A-221 to comply with minimum standards to provide supervision of prisoners to protect their safety, security, health and welfare, and to provide medical care to prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. See State v.Wilson, 183 N.C. App. 100, 104, 643 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2007). 52. Atal times relevant to this action, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had final policymaking authority at the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for the safety 10 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 10 of 61and protection of prisoners and the provision of medical care and emergency medical care to prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 53. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is responsible for appointing, employing, training and supervising the deputies and detention officers at the Orange County Detention Center. 54, At the time of the events alleged herein, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had appointed Major Jerry R. Hawkins, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 162-22, to serve as the Chief Jailer and Keeper of the Orange County Detention Center. 55. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had final policymaking authority at the Orange County Sheriffs Office for the training and supervision of the deputies and detention officers. See Vaught y.Ingram, 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18231 at [*12-14], No.5:10-CT-3009-FL (E.D.N.C. 2011). 56. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the safety of prisoners from assault by other prisoners and to the serious medical needs of prisoners, like Maurice King, who were victims of assault by other prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 57. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is also sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to the need for the training and i Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 11 of 61supervision of deputies and detention officers at the Orange County Detention Center regarding the minimum standards law requiring visual checks on prisoners and to the need for disciplinary and corrective action for violations thereof. 58. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is sued in his official capacity. 59, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood has an official bond that was issued by Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the amount of $25,000 as required by N.C.G.S. § 162-6. This official bond was in effect at the time of the events alleged herein. 60. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood is sued under N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5 as the principal on the official bond. 61. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood has waived governmental immunity for Plaintiff’s claim under N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5 to the extent of the bond. 62. Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America is a Connecticut corporation that is duly licensed to conduct business in the state of North Carolina, 63. Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America is sued as the surety on Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s official bond, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5. 12 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 12 of 61C. Individual Defendants 64. Defendant William D. Berry, Jr. is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a detention officer and was acting under color of state law. 65. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Berry was on duty and working as a detention officer at the Orange County Detention Center. 66. Defendant Berry is sued in his individual capacity. 67. Defendant Thomas E. Linster, III is a citizen and resident of Caswell County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office as a detention officer and was acting under color of state law. 68. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Linster was on duty and working as a detention officer at the Orange County Detention Center, 69. Defendant Linster is sued in his individual capacity. 70. Defendant Wilmer A. Gomez is a citizen and resident of Alamance County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a detention officer and was acting under color of state law. 13 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 13 of 6171. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Gomez was on duty and working as a detention officer at the Orange County Detention Center. 72. Defendant Gomez is sued in his individual capacity. 73. Defendant Stefan H. Hooker is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a detention officer and was acting under color of state law. 74. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Hooker was on duty and working as a detention officer at the Orange County Detention Center. 75. Defendant Hooker is sued in his individual capacity. 76. Defendant Kendrick R. Moore is a citizen and resident of Alamance County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriffs Office as a deputy and supervisor with the rank of Corporal and was acting under color of state law. 77. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Moore was on duty and working as the supervising Corporal at the Orange County Detention Center. 78. Defendant Moore is sued in his individual capacity. 79. Defendant Antonio R. Cartnail is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the 14 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 14 of 61Orange County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy and supervisor with the rank of Sergeant and was acting under color of state law. 80. On the evening of March 4, 2020, Defendant Cartnail was on duty and working as the supervising Sergeant at the Orange County Detention Center. 81. Defendant Cartnail is sued in his individual capacity. 82. Defendant Angela K. Spear is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, employed by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office as First Lieutenant to the Administrator of the Detention Center and was acting under color of state law. 83. As First Lieutenant to the Administrator of the Detention Center, Defendant Spear was responsible for implementing the Detention Center policies developed by Orange County and Defendant Sheriff Blackwood. 84. Defendant Spear is sued in her individual capacity 85. Defendant Jerry R. Hawkins is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action employed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as Administrator of the Orange County Detention Center and was acting under color of state law. 86. As Administrator of the Orange County Detention Center, Defendant Hawkins was responsible for implementing the Detention Center policies developed by Orange County and Defendant Sheriff Blackwood. 15 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 15 of 6187. According to the Orange County Jail Policy and Procedure Manual, “The jail Administrator shall be responsible for insuring compliance and adherence to the policy and procedures manual by all Orange County Jail Detention personnel.” 88. Defendant Hawkins retired from his position as Administrator of the Orange County Detention Center on April 1, 2020. 89, Defendant Hawkins is sued in his individual capacity. 90. Defendant Jamison R. Sykes is a citizen and resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and was, at all times relevant to this action, Chief Deputy to Defendant Sheriff Blackwood and was acting under color of state law. 91. As Chief Deputy to Defendant Sheriff Blackwood, Defendant Sykes was responsible for ensuring Defendant Hawkins and the Detention Center staff were implementing the Detention Center policies developed by Orange County and Defendant Sheriff Blackwood. 92. Defendant Sykes is sued in his individual capacity. FACTUAL ALLE! ONS A. Deficient policies, training and supervision 93. On March 4, 2020, Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood had provided the Orange County deputies and detention officers with deficient policies, training and supervision regarding the following: 16 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 16 of 61a. Compliance with minimum standards law requiring detention officers to provide continuous supervision of prisoners; b. Compliance with minimum standards law requiring detention officers to conduct rounds on an irregular basis at least twice per hour no more than forty minutes apart; Compliance with minimum standards law requiring detention officers to observe each prisoner when conducting rounds; d. Protecting prisoners from assault by prisoners known to be violent; e. Protecting prisoners known to be charged with sex offenses or on the sex offender registry: f. Intervening during assaults of prisoners by other prisoners; g. Addressing the emergency medical needs of prisoners who have been assaulted; h. Responding to prisoner reports of assaults by other prisoners; i. Disciplining prisoners who have assaulted other prisoners to discourage future assaults; and j. Protecting victim prisoners and other prisoners after an assault has occurred from future assaults. 94, In violation of the minimum standards law requiring detention officers to provide continuous supervision of prisoners, Defendants routinely would: 17 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 17 of 61a. Allow an unlimited number of prisoners to gather in the individual unmonitored cells, without any supervision; and b. Allow prisoners to cover the small windows to the individual unmonitored cells so that detention officers could not see inside. 95. In violation of the minimum standards law requiring detention officers to conduct rounds on an irregular basis at least twice per hour during which they observe each prisoner, Defendants routinely would: a. Only enter the B pod twice per hour, allowing the prisoners to predict when the next “round” would occur and to know when no officer would enter the pod for the balance of the hour; b. When conducting “rounds,” not account for the individual prisoners in the common area; c. When conducting “rounds,” not look into the individual cells to check on the prisoners who were not in the common area; and 4d. When conducting “rounds,” touch their badges to the electronic wall sensors indicating they had observed each prisoner while knowing they had not. 96. Defendants further routinely declined to protect prisoners from assault by other prisoners by: 18 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 18 of 61a. Housing together the most violent prisoners with the most vulnerable prisoners while providing little to no supervision or protection; b. Allowing prisoners known to be violent to gather in the individual unmonitored cells with prisoners known to be vulnerable; c. Taking no action to protect prisoners known to be charged with sex offenses or on the sex offender registry; d. Declining to intervene while assaults were taking place, instead allowing the prisoners to govern themselves; e. Discouraging prisoners from filing complaints of assaults by other prisoners; £. Declining to make any record of assaults in the files of the prisoners who had assaulted other prisoners; g. Declining to discipline prisoners who had assaulted other prisoners; h. Declining to take any action to protect other prisoners from future assaults by known violent prisoners after an assault was committed, including moving violent prisoners who had assaulted other prisoners to another jail location — such as the B pod — without implementing any increased level of security or supervision; i. Intentionally omitting or misrepresenting on assaultive prisoners’ booking reports the reasons for them being moved from one jail pod 19 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 19 of 61to another in order to cover up that an assault had been committed; and j. Declining to take any action to protect reporting victim prisoners from assaults by other prisoners as retaliation for having reported the assault. 97. Defendants routinely declined to address the emergency medical needs of prisoners who had been assaulted by: a. Declining to respond to prisoners immediately after an assault was committed; b. When responding to prisoners after an assault was committed, declining to treat medical emergencies with urgency; ° After finding a prisoner seriously injured, declining to secure emergency medical care from a licensed physician; and d. Providing false information to emergency medical personnel to protect jail staff rather than the injured prisoner. 98. Defendants routinely declined to supervise detention officers for compliance with minimum standards law requiring supervision of prisoners and provision of emergency medical care. 20 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 20 of 6199. Defendants routinely declined to take disciplinary action against detention officers known to have violated minimum standards law requiring supervision of prisoners and provision of emergency medical care. 100. Defendants’ lack of training, supervision and discipline for violations of minimum standards law created a widespread pattern and practice among Detention Center staff of deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners. 101. This pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners was so widespread that it served as the unwritten policy of the Orange County Detention Center. 102. This pattern and practice of deliberate indifference, which was known to the prisoners, created an environment in which prisoners were not only permitted but were encouraged to supervise, discipline and otherwise govern each other, including by means of assaults for which they knew not only that they would not be disciplined but that they often would be rewarded with a private cell in the B pod. 103. Defendants’ pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to the safety of prisoners caused the assault of Maurice King on March 4, 2020. 21 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 21 of 61104. Defendants’ pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to the emergency medical needs of prisoners caused the death of Maurice King on March 4, 2020. B. Safety and security of prisoners in the B Pod 105. After an assault was committed by a prisoner, Defendants routinely would either not respond at all or would move the violent prisoner to the B pod, where he would be in “lock back” for a few days, after which he would be released into the general population in the B pod, where, unlike in the other pods, he would have a private cell. 106. The B pod, where Mr. King was being held on March 4, 2020, had a common area overlooked by the Detention Center control room, behind which were two floors of individual cells, eleven cells on each floor. 107. Stairs from the common area led to a walkway in front of the second-floor individual cells. Mr. King’s cell was the fourth individual cell from the right as seen from the control room. 108. Detention Center security cameras were placed to view only the common area and walkway up to the doors of the individual cells. No cameras were placed inside the individual cells. 22 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 22 of 61109. An intercom in each individual cell allowed detention officers in the control room to speak to prisoners in each individual cell and to listen to any sounds inside each cell. 110. The views recorded by the security cameras were displayed on monitors in the Detention Center control room so that Detention Center staff could observe what prisoners were doing in the common area and on the walkway both through the control room windows and on the control room monitors. 111. Because the Detention Center staff could not view the inside of the individual cells either through the control room windows or on the control room monitors, security of both the prisoners and of the Detention Center staff required allowing only the assigned prisoner to be in his individual cell. 112. Additionally, the doors to the individual cells in the B pod were opaque, with only a small window in each door. 113. Accordingly, for even minimal observation from the control room of the inside of the individual cells, whether directly through the control room windows or by viewing the control room monitors, security required the door windows not to be covered by any material. 114. Because of the opaque doors of the individual cells, security required any detention officer making rounds to look into each cell either by looking through the window or by opening the cell door. 23 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 23 of 61risks of assaults of 115. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood recognized the security prisoners by other prisoners by providing an “Inmate Handbook” to each prisoner upon booking, including “blocking cell doors” and “fighting” as being among the behaviors which “will NOT be tolerated.” 116. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood recognized the security risks raised by the individual cells with opaque doors by mandating: In order to maintain the safety, control and security of the facility, staff, visitors and inmates, jail detention officers will be required to make supervision rounds of the facility at least twice per half hour and will be required to visually inspect inmates during these rounds . . . Under no circumstances shall any jail detention officer substitute electronic monitoring (e.g., television camera or intercom surveillance) for supervision rounds or direct visual observation of inmates. 117. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood mandated: “When conducting supervision rounds, jail detention officers will observe inmates for signs of unusual or suspicious behavior.” 118. Disregarding the security risk of assaults of prisoners by other prisoners, however, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood had no rule prohibiting prisoners from congregating in the individual unmonitored cells of the B pod, regardless of a prisoner’s history of mental illness, sex offender status or other vulnerabilities and regardless of a prisoner’s history of violence. 24 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 24 of 61119. To the contrary, Defendants routinely permitted prisoners to enter and remain in the individual cells assigned to other prisoners, outside the view of the control room and security cameras. 120. Defendants further permitted the prisoners to cover the windows in the opaque doors of their individual cells, preventing both the Detention Center staff in the control room and any detention officer conducting rounds from seeing through the window. 121. On March 4, 2020, the windows in the doors of the individual cells in the B pod, including the window in Mr. King’s cell door, had towels covering all or portions of the windows. 122. Allowing prisoners to use the individual cells as common areas, gathering in unlimited numbers, with no security cameras inside the individual cells and with items covering the windows to prevent detention officers from being able to see inside the cells, created obvious safety and security issues including an intolerable risk of harm to prisoners resulting from assaults by other prisoners. C. The fatal assault on Maurice King on March 4, 2020 123. On March 4, 2020, Maurice King, who was being held in the B pod of the Orange County Detention Center, was assaulted in his cell by other 25 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 25 of 61prisoners as the result of Defendants declining to protect him before the assault and declining to intervene during the assault. 124. Prisoners being held in the B pod on March 4, 2020 included: a. Tyler Lloyd Grantz, who was being held on a federal detainer and on a $1.5 million bond on state charges including attempted murder, assault on a law enforcement officer with a firearm, and going armed to the terror of the people, and whose Orange County Sheriff's Office booking report stated: “Jail Alerts: Violent;” s . Darryl Bradford, Jr., who was being held without bond in a federal capital murder case including charges of discharging a firearm causing death and carjacking, and whose Orange County Sheriff’s Office booking report stated: “Jail Alerts: Gang Affiliation,” “12/5/19 taken off razor restrictions per Major Hawkins,” and “2/17/2020 moved from E cell to BPod lockback. Fight with inmate. . .;” c. Linwood Earl Stephens, who was being held without bond awaiting sentencing on the federal charge of felon in possession of a firearm and whose Orange County Sheriff’s Office booking report stated: “01/15/2020 put on lockback B Pod Room 117;” 26 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 26 of 61d. Dawan Rashawn Salters, who was being held without bond awaiting sentencing on the federal charge of carrying and use by brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and e. Stephen McCrimmon, who was being held without bond for failing to appear on five state felony charges, including habitual misdemeanor assault as an habitual felon, and whose Orange County Sheriff’s Office booking report stated: “Jail Alerts: Universal Precautions, Violent,” and: “Moved from 106 to B-Pod other inmates complaining he is making threats and using racial slurrs [sic]. 2/23/20.” 125. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s detention officers routinely would give Mr. McCrimmon extra supplies and even bring gifts into the Detention Center for Mr. McCrimmon in exchange for Mr. McCrimmon agreeing to “keep this pod running smooth.” 126. Prior to the assault on Mr. King, Mr. McCrimmon committed an assault on another prisoner in the J pod who was being held on child sex offense charges. When the victim prisoner reported the assault and detention officers did not act to protect him, the victim prisoner’s attorney moved the Court to order Defendant Sheriff Blackwood to transfer Mr. McCrimmon out of the J pod, which motion was granted. 27 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 27 of 61127. Mr. McCrimmon was ultimately moved to the B pod, without any increase in supervision to prevent the other B pod prisoners from assaults by Mr. McCrimmon. 128. After Mr. McCrimmon was moved out of the J pod, the victim prisoner was again assaulted, this time by other prisoners in retaliation for having “snitched” and gotten Mr. McCrimmon moved. 129. Mr. McCrimmon is a frequent prisoner of the Orange County Detention Center, where he controls the other prisoners to the extent that other prisoners have to ask Mr. McCrimmon’s permission before showering. 130. Defendants knew that prisoners — including Mr, MeCrimmon — had specifically targeted and assaulted prisoners who were charged with sex offenses or who were on the sex offender registry. 131. Itis apparent from the security recordings that Mr. McCrimmon was involved in the March 4, 2020 orchestrated attack on Mr. King, who Defendants knew was on the sex offender registry. 132. On March 4, 2020, from their view within the control room, as well as on display monitors inside the control room, Defendants saw the following events: 28 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 28 of 61a. At 6:38! p.m., Mr. King was in the common area of the B pod speaking with prisoner Tyler Grantz in front of prisoners Stephen McCrimmon, Linwood Stephens and Darryl Bradford. b. Thirty seconds later, Mr. King motioned for Mr. Grantz to follow him. He and Mr. Grantz then walked up the stairs to the second floor, where Mr. King’s individual cell was located. c. At 6:39 p.m., Mr. King and Mr. Grantz entered Mr. King’s individual cell, and Mr. Grantz closed the door behind them. d. Prisoner Dawan Salters, who was standing upstairs when Mr. King and Mr. Grantz walked past him, followed close behind them and then peered through the small uncovered portion of Mr. King’s cell door window. e. Mr. Stephens, who was downstairs in the common area sitting with Mr. McCrimmon and watching as Mr. King and Mr. Grantz walked upstairs and into Mr. King’s cell, quickly walked upstairs as soon as Mr. Grantz closed Mr. King’s cell door. f. As Mr. Stephens approached the door to Mr. King’s cell, Mr. MecCrimmon said something to prisoner Darryl Bradford, Jr, and then * Defendant Sheriff Blackwood has through counsel stated that the timestamps reflected on the Detention Center's security camera recordings are fifty-four minutes fast. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown. Times stated in this Complaint are alleged in realtime, after adjusting the timestamps on the recordings by fifty-four minutes, 29 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 29 of 61turned around to face Mr. King’s cell and watched what was occurring upstairs. g. Mr. Stephens then opened the door to Mr. King’s cell. Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters together then visibly restrained someone who was attempting to exit the cell, pushing him back into the cell. h. As this was occurring, Mr. Bradford walked quickly upstairs, a so entered Mr. King’s cell, and closed the cell door behind him with himself, Mr. King, Mr. Grantz, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters all inside Mr. King’s cell. i. At 6:40 p.m. Mr. Bradford, Mr. Salters and Mr. Stephens exited Mr. King’s cell, closing the door behind them with Mr. King and Mr. Grantz inside. j. Mr. Stephens then leaned up against Mr. King’s cell door with his foot holding the cell door shut while looking into the cell through the uncovered portion of the window and watching what was occurring inside, with Mr. Bradford and Mr. Salters standing beside him. k. At 6:45 p.m., the prisoners opened the door to Mr. King’s cell and allowed Mr. Grantz to exit. Mr. Grantz walked into his cell, which was also on the second floor, while wiping his face. 30 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 30 of 611. After Mr. Grantz exited Mr. King’s cell, Mr. Bradford closed the door to Mr. King’s cell, with Mr. King still inside. m. While Mr, Bradford and Mr. Salters stood on the walkway in front of the second floor cells, Mr. Stephens entered Mr. Grantz’s cell and spoke with Mr. Grantz. n. Mr. MeCrimmon walked upstairs and spoke with Mr. Stephens to the left of Mr. Grantz’s cell. Mr. Stephens then re-entered Mr. Grantz’s cell and spoke further with Mr. Grantz. o. At6:46 p.m., Mr. Bradford entered Mr. King’s cell with Mr. Salters standing guard in the doorway to his own cell, three cells to the left of Mr. King’s cell, p. Mr. Stephens exited Mr. Grantz’s cell and stood guard in the doorway to that cell, with Mr. Grantz still inside behind him q. At 6:47 p.m., Defendant Berry entered the B pod, and Mr. Stephens closed the door to Mr. Grantz’s cell to hide Mr. Grantz from Defendant Berry. r, When Defendant Berry entered the B pod, Mr. Salters entered Mr. King’s cell to warn Mr. Bradford that Defendant Berry was coming. Mr. Bradford then immediately exited Mr. King’s cell, closed Mr. King’s cell door and entered the cell next to it. 31 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 31 of 61s. At 6:48 p.m., Mr. Stephens pointed Defendant Berry, who purportedly was conducting rounds, away from Mr. King’s cell. Defendant Berry then walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking inside it. t. Mr. Bradford then re-entered Mr. King’s cell. u, At 6:49 p.m., Defendant Berry again walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking inside it, with Mr. Stephens again distracting Defendant Berry away from Mr. King’s cell. v. Mr. Stephens then led Defendant Berry downstairs where he handed Defendant Berry some books. w. At 6:50 p.m., Defendant Berry exited the B pod carrying the books. x. At 6:52 p.m., Mr. Bradford repeatedly opened and closed the door to Mr. King’s cell. y. At 6:54 p.m., Mr. Bradford exited Mr. King’s cell and handed something to Mr. Stephens which Mr. Stephens then threw onto the floor. Mr. Bradford then re-entered Mr. King’s cell. z. At 6:55 p.m., Mr. Bradford again began swinging the door to Mr. King’s cell open and closed, with Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters still standing guard. aa. At 6:58 p.m., Mr. Stephens opened the door to Mr. Grantz’s cell, then stood in the doorway to the cell with Mr. Grantz behind him. 32 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 32 of 61bb. At 6:59 p.m., Mr. Bradford again exited and re-entered Mr. King’s cell, with Mr. Stephens going into and out of Mr. Grantz’s cell and Mr. Salters continuing to stand guard. cc. At 7:19 p.m., Defendant Linster entered the B pod and started walking upstairs, as Mr. Stephens closed the door to Mr. Grantz’s cell. dd, Defendant Linster then stood in front of Mr. King’s cell door while speaking to Mr. Stephens, and then continued walking past Mr. King’s cell, without looking into the cell. ee. Defendant Linster touched his badge to the far wall sensor indicating he had conducted rounds, then walked back past Mr. King’s cell, again without looking into the cell, this time while speaking with Mr. Bradford, who was walking in between Defendant Linster and Mr. King’s cell ff. Defendant Linster then walked back downstairs and touched his badge to the downstairs wall sensors indicating he had conducted rounds. gg. At 7:21 p.m., Defendant Linster exited the pod, without having looked into any cell. hh.At 7:47 p.m., Defendant Linster re-entered the B pod, touched his badge to the two downstairs wall sensors, then walked upstairs. 33 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 33 of 61i. At7:48 p.m., Defendant Linster walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking into the cell, touched his badge to the far wall sensor indicating he had conducted rounds, and then walked back by Mr. King’s cell, again without looking into the cell. ij. After walking past Mr. King’s cell, Defendant Linster looked back toward Mr. King’s cell and spoke with Mr. Bradford, who was standing outside of Mr. King’s cell. Defendant Linster then walked downstairs. kk.At 7:49 p.m., Defendant Linster exited the B pod. Il. At 7:51 p.m., Mr. Bradford began repeatedly re-entering and exiting Mr. King’s cell. mm. At 8:07 p.m., Mr. Bradford exited Mr. King’s cell, picked something up off the floor, and walked downstairs to the common area. 133. The Defendants in the control room, directly and on the monitors, saw not only the conduct of the prisoners at and around Mr. King’s cell, but also the conduct of Defendant Berry and Defendant Linster in conducting “rounds” without visually observing each prisoner, without looking into the cells, and without reacting to the conduct of Mr. Stephens, Mr. Bradford, and Mr. Salters distracting them away from Mr. King’s and Mr. Grantz’s cells. 34 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 34 of 61D. Defendants’ response to Mr. King’s emergency medical needs 134. At 8:12 p.m., Defendant Berry entered the B pod wearing latex gloves and carrying something in his hand and walked upstairs at a slow pace directly to Mr. King’s cell, which he then entered. 135. Upon information and belief, the item Defendant Berry was carrying was an inhaler. 136. The Sheriff’s Office later reported to the Department of Health and Human Services that Defendant Linster, while conducting rounds at approximately 7:50 p.m., had heard a prisoner making a concerning noise coming from Mr. King’s cell as Defendant Linster was walking down the stairs. 137. Instead of looking into Mr. King’s cell, however, Defendant Linster exited the B pod. 138. The Sheriff"s Office reported to the Department of Health and Human Services that Defendant Linster told another detention officer in the control room that he thought he heard something coming from Mr. King’s cell. 139. At 8:13 p.m. — twenty-three minutes after Defendant Linster reportedly heard the concerning sound coming from Mr. King’s cell — Defendant Berry finally entered Mr. King’s cell wearing latex gloves to find Mr. King 35 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 35 of 61lying down, soaking wet, with visible swelling and bleeding of his left eye, complaining of shortness of breath and aches and pains throughout his body. 140. Visible blood was on the floor, walls and the inside of the door to the cell. 141. At8:17 p.m. Defendant Berry exited Mr. King’s cell. 142. Defendant Berry then walked toward the stairs, turned around, walked back past Mr. King’s cell to the far wall, touched his badge to the wall sensor indicating he had conducted rounds, walked back past Mr. King’s cell, touched his badge to the other upstairs wall sensor, walked down the stairs, touched his badge to both downstairs wall sensors, and then exited the B pod. 143. The Sheriffs Office reported to the Department of Health and Human Services that Defendant Berry “made a round and came back and said inmate King was having an asthma attack the [sic] he went to [sic] inmate’s inhaler and a wheelchair to get inmate to the medical office.” 144. According to Mr. King’s Duke Hospital records, “patient was last seen normal at 7 pm and then found in his cell minimally responsive.” 145. N.C.G.S. § 153A-224(b) explicitly requires: In a medical emergency, the custodial personnel shall secure emergency medical care from a licensed physician according to the unit’s plan for medical care. If a physician designated in the plan is not available, the personnel shall secure medical services from any licensed physician who is available. 36 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 36 of 61146. Despite the fact Mr. King was experiencing an obvious medical emergency, Defendant Berry failed to secure emergency medical care from a licensed physician. 147. At 8:26 p.m., Mr. Grantz came downstairs to the common area wearing shorts and a towel covering his head. 148. At 8:27 p.m., Defendant Berry and Defendant Linster, both wearing latex gloves, entered the B pod, walked upstairs and entered Mr. King’s cell. 149. At 8:28 p.m., Defendant Gomez, also wearing latex gloves, entered the B pod, walked upstairs and entered Mr. King’s cell. 150. Despite the fact Mr. King was experiencing an obvious medical emergency, Defendants Berry, Linster and Gomez failed to secure emergency medical care from a licensed physician, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 153A-224(b). 151. At8:30 p.m., Defendant Gomez exited Mr. King’s cell and then exited the B pod. 152. At 8:37 p.m., Defendant Berry exited Mr. King’s cell and then exited the B pod. 153. At8:40 p.m., Defendant Gomez re-entered the B pod, walked upstairs and re-entered Mr. King’s cell. 37 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 37 of 61154, At 8:45 p.m., Defendant Berry re-entered the B pod again carrying something in his hand, walked upstairs and re-entered Mr. King’s cell. 155. At 8:52 p.m., Defendants Berry and Linster exited Mr. King’s cell with Mr. King draped over their shoulders. They held Mr. King up while Defendant Gomez shackled Mr. King’s legs together. 156. With Mr. King draped over Defendants Berry’s and Linster’s shoulders and Defendant Gomez assisting from the front, Defendants slowly carried and walked Mr. King to the top of the stairs, with Mr. King struggling to move his feet. 157. At8:55 p.m., Mr. Stephens, whom Defendants had seen participating in the assault of Mr. King, came upstairs. Employing the help of Mr. Stephens, Defendants Berry, Linster and Gomez finally carried Mr. King down the stairs. 158. At8:56 p.m., Defendant detention officers placed Mr. King in a wheelchair and transported him to the nurse’s office. 159. At 9:06 p.m. — two and a half hours after Mr. King was assaulted and nearly an hour after Defendant detention officers discovered him lying in his, cell seriously injured and unable to walk — the jail nurse called 911 to request emergency medical services, reporting that Mr. King was having 38 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 38 of 61difficulty breathing, was not responding appropriately, and had a bruise over his eye. 160. At 9:13 p.m., when emergency medical personnel arrived, Mr. King was in a wheelchair and was sluggish to answer questions, but “was breathing adequately and without difficulty.” 161. Defendants told emergency medical personnel “there was no evidence in [Mr. King’s] cell that he had fallen and that [Mr. King] was found in his bed.” 162. Defendants wrongly reported to emergency medical personnel having last seen Mr. King “normal around 1900 as he went to take a shower.” 163. Emergency medical personnel noted that Mr. King was soaking wet and had a hematoma over his left eye with swelling and bruising to both the upper and lower eyelids and visible blood on the eye itself. Mr. King was complaining of chest pain. 164. At 9:31 p.m., emergency medical personnel transported Mr. King from the Detention Center to Duke Emergency Department. In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, Mr. King told medical personnel that “Grant” had “stomped him in the head” and “choked him out.” 165. While en route to Duke Emergency Department, emergency medical personnel consulted cardiology and performed EKGs on Mr. King. Mr. 39 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 39 of 61King became acutely extremely hypertensive, was noted to have diminished strength on the left side of his body, and complained that he could not use his left arm and felt like he could not breathe. 166. When he arrived at Duke Emergency Department at 9:42 p.m., Mr. King was having a major heart attack. Hospital staff noted “obvious trauma to head (contusion/ bruising to left eye)” and “a very high concern for TB? (especially IC* bleed).” 167. At 10:04 p.m., Duke Emergency medical staff were attempting to intubate Mr. King, but he was vomiting. 168. Shortly after arriving at Duke Emergency Department, Mr. King went into cardiac arrest. After several rounds of chest compressions, resuscitation efforts were ceased. Mr. King was pronounced dead at 10:22 p.m. 169. As a result of the assault which Defendants declined to prevent or stop and as a result of Defendants’ prolonged delay in seeking emergency medical treatment, medical personnel were unable to save Mr. King’s life. E. Investigations and findings by medical examiners 170. Local Durham County medical examiner Matthew Crittenden made contact with Defendants, who claimed an altercation had occurred but could not be seen on video due to it having occurred in a cell. Mr. Crittenden > TBI stands for traumatic brain injury. > IC stands for intracranial 40 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 40 of 61made multiple requests of Defendants to view the video and reports but Defendants would not provide the requested documentation. 171. Mr. Crittenden produced a report and referred the case to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. 172. Inhis report titled “Medical Examiner Preliminary Summary of Circumstances Surrounding Death,” Mr. Crittenden stated: “I believe death occurred in this case due to acute cardiac arrhythmia secondary to blunt force trauma. I believe the manner of death for this case should be homicide.” 173. Medical examiner Dr. Kimberly Janssen of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed the autopsy on March 5, 2020 with Orange County Sheriff’s Office Detective Hendricks present. 174. Dr. Janssen found swelling and deep scalp hemorrhage of Mr. King’s right forehead; laceration, contusion and swelling of the right side of Mr. King’s face; swelling, abrasion, and petechial hemorrhage of Mr. King’s left eyelid; and hemorrhage of Mr. King’s left eye. 175. Dr. Janssen noted in the autopsy report that she did not view the surveillance video herself but instead relied on a timeline of events provided by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. 176. Defendants misrepresented the following to the medical examiner: 4 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 41 of 61a. that this was a physical altercation between Mr. King and one other prisoner; b. that other prisoners had gone into Mr. King’s cell after the assault “to check on Mr. King multiple times;” c. the time of the assault; 4. the length of time Defendants delayed responding after the assault and after hearing Mr. King “making sounds” in his cell; and e. Mr. King’s physical and mental condition when Defendants found him. 177. In the autopsy report, Dr. Janssen classified the cause of death as hypertensive cardiovascular disease in the setting of a physical altercation, 178. Dr. Janssen classified the manner of death as homicide. F. Investigation by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services 179. Mr. King’s death prompted an investigation of the Orange County Detention Center and its staff by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. 180. N.C.G.S. § 153A-224(a) explicitly requires: No person may be confined in a local confinement facility unless custodial personnel are present and available to provide continuous supervision in order that custody will be secure and that, in event of emergency, 42 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 42 of 61such as fire, illness, assaults by other prisoners, or otherwise, the prisoners can be protected. These personnel shall supervise prisoners closely enough to maintain safe custody and control and to be at all times informed of the prisoners’ general health and emergency medical needs. 181. The North Carolina Administrative Code, at 1OA NCAC 14J.0601(a), requires: A jail shall have an officer make supervision rounds and observe each inmate at least two times within a 60 minute time period on an irregular basis with not more than 40 minutes between rounds. Supervision rounds shall be conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. . . The supplemental methods of supervision specified in Paragraph (b) of this Rule shall not substitute for supervision rounds. 182. The North Carolina Administrative Code, at 1OA NCAC 14J.0601(b), require: A jail shall utilize one or more supplemental methods of supervision 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The supplemental methods of supervision are: (1) direct two-way voice communication; (2) remote two-way voice communication; (3) direct visual observation; and (4) video surveillance. 183. Chief Jail Inspector Chris Wood of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services concluded that on March 4, 2020 the Orange County Detention Center had violated North Carolina minimum standards law by not complying with the mandate to observe each prisoner in person, by neglecting to stop and look into each cell when making rounds during the 43 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 43 of 616:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m., and 12:00 a.m. hours, 184. As noted by Chief Jail Inspector Wood, even after Mr. King was finally found injured and in distress and transported to Duke Emergency Department where he died, Defendants continued to disregard the law by continuing to conduct their mandated rounds without looking into the individual cells. 185. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s response to official notice of violations of the State’s minimum standards law was to commit to “additional training [which] clarifies and emphasizes the requirement of . . . direct observation of inmates during supervision rounds.” 186. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood represented in his response to the Department of Health and Human Services: “Disciplinary action will be taken against the detention officers observed during the May 4, 2020 [sic] incident for failure to comply with the direct observation requirement for supervision rounds.” 187. Despite having violated minimum standards law resulting in Mr. King’s assault and death, none of the detention officers involved and responsible were dismissed, demoted, suspended or transferred, nor did they experience any other change in position classification. 44 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 44 of 61DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MR. KING’S SAFETY FROM ASSAULT BY OTHER PRISONERS AND TO HIS SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT 188. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 189. Mr. King had the clearly established right guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including deliberate indifference to his safety from. assault by other prisoners and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Scinto v, Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2016). 190. Defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to Mr. King’s safety from assault by other prisoners before March 4, 2020 by: a. Housing together the most violent prisoners with the most vulnerable prisoners with little to no supervision or protection; b. Allowing prisoners to enter each other’s individual cells where they could not be viewed, supervised or protected; c. Allowing prisoners to cover the windows to their individual cells; 4. Declining to discipline prisoners for committing assaults on other prisoners to protect prisoners from future assaults; 45 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 45 of 61e. Declining to supervise prisoners known to have committed assaults on other prisoners to protect prisoners from future assaults; f. Discouraging prisoners from “snitching” by reporting assaults committed against them by other prisoners; g. Allowing and encouraging the prisoners to supervise and discipline each other; h. Giving prisoners gifts in exchange for prisoners agreeing to “keep this pod running smooth;” and i. Having a pattern and practice known to the prisoners of conducting “rounds” without actually observing the prisoners as required by minimum standards law. 191. Defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to Mr. King’s safety from assault by other prisoners and to his serious medical needs on March 4, 2020 by: a. Allowing Mr. Grantz to follow Mr. King into Mr. King’s cell and close the door; b. Allowing Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters to follow Mr. Grantz and Mr. King into Mr. King’s cell; c. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters restraining someone in the doorway to Mr. King’s cell; 46 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 46 of 61d. Allowing Mr. Bradford to enter Mr. King’s cell after seeing Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters restrain someone in the doorway, leaving Mr. King, Mr. Grantz, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Salters and Mr. Bradford in Mr. King’s cell together; e. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Stephens holding the door to Mr. King’s cell closed with Mr. King and Mr. Grantz inside the cell; £. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Salters and Mr. Bradford guarding Mr. King’s cell with Mr. King and Mr. Grantz inside the cell; g. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Grantz exit Mr. King’s cell wiping his face, leaving Mr. King inside, with Mr. Bradford then closing the door to Mr. King’s cell; h. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Bradford continuously entering and exiting Mr. King’s cell while the other prisoners stood guard outside of Mr. King’s cell; i. Declining to look into Mr. King’s cell to check on him when conducting “rounds;” j. Declining to intervene when they saw Mr. Stephens twice distract Defendant Berry away from Mr. King’s cell when Defendant Berry was conducting “rounds;” 47 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 47 of 61k. Declining to intervene when Defendant Linster walked past Mr. King’s cell without looking inside to check on him four times while conducting “rounds;” 1. Delaying an hour and a half after the assault on Mr. King before checking on Mr. King in his cell; m. Delaying twenty-three minutes to check on Mr. King after Defendant Linster reportedly heard a concerning noise coming from Mr. King’s cell; n, Delaying forty-three minutes after finding Mr. King in his cell, visibly injured, in distress and unable to walk, before bringing Mr. King to the nurse; 0. Delaying fifty-five minutes after finding Mr. King in his cell, visibly injured, in distress and unable to walk — before dialing 911 to request medical assistance; and p. Deliberately providing false information to emergency medical personnel. 192. Defendants further demonstrated deliberate indifference to the safety of prisoners by: 48 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 48 of 61a. Declining to observe prisoners when conducting “rounds” even after finding Mr. King seriously injured and having him transported to Duke Emergency Department; and b. Declining to discipline any of the Defendant detention officers involved for their violations of minimum standards law requiring observation of prisoners when conducting rounds which resulted in Mr. King’s assault and death. 193. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to Mr. King allowed other prisoners to assault Mr. King on March 4, 2020, causing Mr. King’s death. 194. The fatal assault on Mr. King was a clearly foreseeable result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to Mr. King. 195. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to Mr. King and to Mr. King’s medical needs severely delayed medical care for Mr. King’s injuries from the assault by other prisoners on March 4, 2020, causing Mr. King’s death. 196. Defendants at all times alleged herein were acting under color of state law. 49 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 49 of 61197. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their deliberate indifference to Mr. King’s safety from assault by other prisoners and to Mr. King’s serious medical needs which caused Mr. King’s assault and death in violation of Mr. King’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: POLICY OR CUSTOM OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THE SAFETY OF PRISONERS FROM ASSAULT AND TO THE SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS OF PRISONERS BY DEFENDANTS ORANGE COUNTY AND SHERIFF BLACKWOOD 198. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 199. Municipal liability results “when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury.” Monell v. Department of Social Services Of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 200. Atall times relevant to this action, Defendant Orange County was responsible for ensuring the Detention Center custodial personnel provided continuous supervision of prisoners and emergency medical care for prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 50 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 50 of 61201. Atall times relevant to this action, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood was the duly elected Sheriff of Orange County and as such was responsible for ensuring the Detention Center custodial personnel provided continuous supervision of prisoners and emergency medical care for prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 202. Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood provided Orange County Sheriffs deputies and detention officers with deficient policies, training and supervision regarding the safety of prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center and the provision of emergency medical care to prisoners. 203. Municipal liability applies where there is “irresponsible failure by municipal policymakers to put a stop to or correct a widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct by police officers of which the specific violation is simply an example.” Spell v, McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1389 (4" Cir. 1987). 204. On March 4, 2020, there existed among deputies and detention officers at the Detention Center widespread patterns of the following: a. Housing together the most violent prisoners with the most vulnerable prisoners while providing little to no supervision or protection; b. Allowing and even encouraging the prisoners to supervise and discipline each other; 51 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 51 of 61c. Non-compliance with state minimum standards law requiring detention officers to visually check on prisoners at least twice per hour to ensure their safety and wellbeing; d. Discouragement by detention officers to prisoners of reporting assaults committed against them by other prisoners; e. When assaults between prisoners were reported, declining to a protect prisoners from future assaults; and £. When assaults between prisoners were reported or otherwise discovered, declining to address the emergency medical needs of prisoners who had been assaulted. 205. The Orange County Sheriffs Office had a longstanding and widespread pattern of unconstitutional conduct by its deputies and detention officers of which Defendants’ violations of Maurice King’s constitutional rights are simply examples. 206. Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood failed to put a stop to or to correct these widespread patterns of unconstitutional conduct by the Orange County Sheriff's deputies and detention officers. 207. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s response to official notice of violations of the State’s minimum standards law in which he committed to “additional training [which] clarifies and emphasizes the requirement of .. . direct 52 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 52 of 61observation of inmates during supervision rounds” is an acknowledgement by Defendant Sheriff Blackwood that the training and supervision he had provided were deficient. 208. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s d sion not to discipline any detention officer for their multiple March 4, 2020 violations of minimum standards law which caused the fatal assault of Mr. King is evidence that Defendant Sheriff Blackwood knew this unconstitutional conduct of deliberate indifference was a widespread pattern. 209. Atall times relevant to this action, Defendants acted in a law enforcement environment created by Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood which tacitly authorized deputies and detention officers to violate minimum standards law and the constitutional rights of prisoners. 210. The conduct of Defendants on March 4, 2020 which caused the assault and death of Maurice King was in keeping with the custom and practice of the deputies and detention officers of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. 211. Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood, by providing deficient policies and training regarding the safety of prisoners and the provision of emergency medical attention to prisoners, demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners and 53 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 53 of 61created a substantial risk of harm to prisoners housed at the Orange County Detention Center. 212. Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood, by failing to correct widespread patterns of unconstitutional conduct by deputies and detention officers, demonstrated deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners. 213. Defendants Orange County and Sheriff Blackwood, by failing to correct widespread patterns of unconstitutional conduct by deputies and detention officers, created an unsafe environment for prisoners housed at the Orange County Detention Center and as such are liable for Defendants’ violations of ‘Mr. King’s constitutional rights alleged above which caused Mr. King’s death. 214. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to the safety and medical needs of prisoners which caused Mr. King’s assault and death in violation of Mr. King’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 54 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 54 of 61THIRD CLAIM FOR RI WRONGFUL DEATH BY WILLFUL OR WANTON CONDUCT RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF MAURICE KING 215. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 216. Before March 4, 2020, Defendants consciously and intentionally disregarded and were indifferent to the rights and safety of prisoners which Defendants knew or should have known were reasonably likely to result in injury from assaults by other prisoners by: a. Housing together the most violent prisoners with the most vulnerable prisoners while providing little to no supervision; b. Declining to establish a rule prohibiting prisoners from congregating in the individual unmonitored cells; c. Allowing prisoners to congregate together in the individual unmonitored cells; d. Declining to conduct rounds observing each prisoner in the B pod; e. Declining to enforce the minimum standards law requiring observation of each prisoner in conducting rounds; £, Discouraging prisoners from reporting assaults committed against them by other prisoners; 55 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 55 of 61217. g. Declining to discipline prisoners for committing assaults on other prisoners or otherwise to protect prisoners from future assaults; and h. Allowing and even encouraging prisoners to supervise and discipline each other. On March 4, 2020, Defendants consciously and intentionally disregarded and were indifferent to the rights and safety of Mr. King which Defendants knew or should have known were reasonably likely to result in injury from assault by other prisoners by: a. Declining to intervene when Mr. King and Mr. Grantz. entered Mr. King’s cell, with Mr. Grantz closing the cell door behind him; b. Declining to intervene when Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters followed and restrained someone in Mr. King’s cell; c. Declining to intervene when Mr. Bradford entered Mr. King’s cell with Mr. Grantz, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Salter already inside; d. Declining to intervene when Mr. Stephens held the door to Mr. King’s cell closed while Mr. Bradford and Mr. Salters stood guard; e. Declining to intervene when Mr. Grantz exited Mr. King’s cell, wiping his face, leaving Mr. King inside, with Mr. Bradford then closing the door to Mr. King’s cell; and 56 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 56 of 61f. Declining to intervene when Mr. Bradford repeatedly entered and exited Mr. King’s cell while Mr. Stephens and Mr. Salters stood guard. 218. On March 4, 2020, Defendants consciously and intentionally disregarded and were indifferent to the rights and safety of Mr. King which Defendants knew or should have known were reasonably likely to result in death from Defendants’ delay of emergency medical services by: a. Declining to enter Mr. King’s cell immediately after seeing the conduct of Mr. Grantz, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Bradford and Mr. Salters; b. Declining to enter Mr. King’s cell immediately after Defendant Linster heard a concerning noise from Mr. King’s cell; c. Declining to seek medical care immediately upon finding Mr. King in his cell, seriously injured and unable to walk; and d. Misrepresenting to emergency medical personnel their knowledge of what had occurred. 219. Defendants’ conscious and intentional disregard and indifference to the rights and safety of Mr. King from assault by other prisoners and to Mr. King’s serious medical needs were the proximate cause of Mr. King’s death. 220. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to N.C.GS. § 28A-18-2 for their willful or wanton conduct including their conscious and intentional S7 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 57 of 61disregard and indifference to the rights and safety of Mr. King which caused Mr. King’s assault and death. FOURTH CLAIM: ACTION ON OFFICIAL BOND AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHERIFF BLACKWOOD AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA 221. ‘The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 222. On September 2, 2018, Defendant Sheriff Blackwood procured an official bond as principal from Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America in the sum of $25,000. 223. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood’s official bond was in full force and effect, on March 4, 2020 and through the present. 224. Defendant Orange County deputies and detention officers were acting within the course and scope of their employment and under color of the Orange County Sheriff's Office when they declined to protect Maurice King from assault and then declined to timely or appropriately respond to his medical needs, causing his death. 225. ‘The acts of Defendant deputies and detention officers, as alleged in this action and imputed to Defendant Sheriff Blackwood, constitute misconduct, misbehavior, and a breach of their official duties. 58 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 58 of 61226. The customs and practices of Defendant Sheriff Blackwood as alleged in this action constitute misconduct, misbehavior, and a breach of his official duties as sheriff. 227. Defendant Sheriff Blackwood and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are liable to Plaintiff, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5, for the unlawful acts committed by Defendant Sheriff Blackwood and Defendant deputies and detention officers under color of the Orange County Sheriff's Office. DAMAGES 228. As the direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, as alleged herein, Maurice King was fatally assaulted by other prisoners at the Orange County Detention Center. 229. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the rights of Maurice King, Mr. King suffered physical and emotional pain and suffering; the loss of his life; loss of future wages; and such other damages as may be shown by the evidence. 230. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff. as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, has suffered funeral and burial expenses and the costs of this action. 59 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 59 of 61231. Plaintiff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, is entitled to recover compensatory damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, for the claims of Maurice King under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 232. Plaintiff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, individually, for the claims of Maurice King under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 233. Plaintiff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, is entitled to recover compensatory damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, for the state law claims of Maurice King. 234. Plaintiff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maurice Antoine King, is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, individually, for the state law claims of Maurice King. 235. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants Sheriff Blackwood and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, jointly and severally, to the extent of the Sheriff's official bond for Plaintiff's claim under N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5. PRAYER FOR Ri F WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court for the following relief: 1. Compensatory damages from Defendants, jointly and severally; 2. Punitive damages from Defendants in their individual capacities 60 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 60 of 61w Reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and under N.C.G. . § ID-45. . Costs of court and interest as allowed by law; . A trial by jury on all contested issues of fact; and . Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. This the 17" day of May, 2021. /s/L. Allyn Sharp L. Allyn Sharp Allyn Sharp Law, PLLC P.O. Box 730 Carrboro, NC 27510 Telephone: (919) 265-9200 Facsimile: (919) 869-1874 [email protected] N.C. State Bar No. 43195 Counsel for Plaintiff 61 Case 1:21-cv-00383-UA-JEP Document1 Filed 05/17/21 Page 61 of 61