IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD READER, as Administrator of CIVIL DIVISION

the Estate of RHONDA RUSSELL,
No.
Plaintiff,

v.

BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,

ABBIE TATE, JAMES ECKARD,
SHAUN EDMUNDSON, DAVID
FOGLE, NATHANIEL PORT,
ZACHARY STITT, JAMES OTT,
LARRY HOPKINS, CITY OF
ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA, and the
Estate of GEORGE E. BISTLINE.

Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

AND NOW, comes Plaintiff Richard Reader, as Administrator of the Estate of

Rhonda Russell, by and through counsel Robert A. Bracken, Esquire, Charles A.

Lamberton, Esquire and Bracken Lamberton, LLC and files the following Complaint and

avers as follows:

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Richard Reader is an adult individual residing in Blair County,

Pennsylvania.

2. On or about August 12, 2022, Richard Reader was sworn in as the

Administrator of the Estate of Rhonda Russell.

 3. Rhonda Russell served admirably for 16 years as a Blair County

Corrections Officer and was killed in the line of duty. She is survived by her three adult

sons, fiancé and parents.

4. Defendant Blair County, Pennsylvania (“Blair County”) is a governmental

entity and/or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an address

of 423 Allegheny Street, Suite 36, Hollidaysburg, PA 16648.

5. Defendant Abbie Tate is an adult individual employed by Blair County as

Warden at the Blair County Prison.

6. Defendant James Eckard is an adult individual employed by Blair County

as a Deputy Warden at the Blair County Prison.

7. Defendant Shaun Edmundson is an adult individual employed by Blair

County as a Deputy Warden at the Blair County Prison.

8. Warden Tate is a supervisor of Deputy Wardens Eckard and Edmundson.

9. Defendant David Fogle is an adult individual employed by Blair County

as a Lieutenant at the Blair County Prison.

10. Warden Tate and Deputy Wardens Eckard and Edmundson are supervisors

of Lt. Fogle.

11. Defendant Nathaniel Port is an adult individual employed by Blair County

as a Corrections Officer at the Blair County Prison. On November 15, 2021, Nathaniel

Port was the Shift Commander at the Blair County Prison.

12. Defendant Zachary Stitt is an adult individual employed by Blair County

as a Corrections Officer at the Blair County Prison. On November 16, 2021, Zachary

Stitt was the Shift Commander at the Blair County Prison.

2
 13. Warden Tate, Deputy Wardens Eckard and Edmundson and Lt. Fogle are

supervisors of Shift Commanders Port and Stitt.

14. Defendant James Ott is an adult individual employed by Blair County as

its Sheriff.

15. Defendant Larry Hopkins is an adult individual employed by Blair County

as a Sheriff’s Deputy.

16. Sheriff Ott is a supervisor of Sheriff’s Deputy Hopkins.

17. Defendant City of Altoona, Pennsylvania (“Altoona”) is governmental

entity and/or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an address

of Altoona City Hall, 1301 12th Street, Altoona, PA 16601.

18. On February 23, 2022, George E. Bistline, an Altoona police officer,

passed away. Thus, the Estate of George E. Bistline is named as a Defendant.

19. On March 23, 2022, Letters Testamentary were granted to Rachel Marie

Bistline Fazio naming her the Executor of the Estate of George E. Bistline and listing her

address as 31236 Shaker Circle, Wesley Chappel, FL 33543.

20. Plaintiff brings these claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21. The Court has jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

and § 1343.

22. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

23. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred in Blair County,

Pennsylvania.

3
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Aikens’ Criminal History

24. Prior to November 2021, Christopher Aikens had an extensive criminal

history consisting of arrests or convictions for robbery, burglary, reckless endangerment,

unlawful firearm possession, assault, harassment, terroristic threats, witness/victim

intimidation, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and drug-related offenses,

among others.

25. As a result, Aikens had been incarcerated for more than twenty years.

26. On November 10, 2021, Aikens was arrested and charged with several

felonies, including prohibited possession of a firearm, altering identification marks on a

firearm, forgery, and the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to distribute

drugs, as well as several other drug-related misdemeanors.

27. Aikens was facing several additional years in prison as a result of those

crimes.

28. Aikens understood that he might spend most of the remainder of his life in

prison and was desperate to avoid justice.

B. Blair County Prison Officials Conceal Aikens’ Escape Attempts

29. Aikens entered the Blair County Prison on November 11, 2021.

30. During the medical intake process, Aikens stated that he had nothing to

live for.

31. Rather, than being placed on suicide watch, Aikens was moved to the

Blair County Prison’s J-Block.

32. Initially, he was placed in cell J-08, but then he was moved to cell J-03.

4
 33. The morning of November 15, 2021, Blair County Corrections Officers

Christopher Charles and Cody Coudriet were working J-Block when the drains stopped

working properly.

34. As a result, Officers Charles and Courdriet moved all inmates housed in J-

Block to the gym except for two inmates that remained to clean as needed.

35. One of those two inmates told Officer Coudriet that he should inspect cell

J-03, as he had heard that inmates had been digging with a broken piece of a fan.

36. So, Officers Charles and Coudriet inspected cell J-03 and found an

approximate 3 feet x 2 feet hole in the wall.

37. Several large bricks and pieces of brick had been removed and attempts

had been made to conceal large amounts of brick dust.

38. Officers Charles and Coudriet found the metal handle that had been

broken off of the fan hidden on the top bunk with Aikens’ belongings.

39. According to Aikens, he was nearly successful in fitting through the hole

in his cell to escape.

40. Officers Charles and Coudriet separated Aikens and his cell mate in

separate rooms off J-Block; however, not long thereafter, Officer Charles saw Aikens and

his cell mate back on J-Block.

41. Officer Charles called Lt. Fogle and asked if Aikens was going to be sent

to the Restrictive Housing Unit (“RHU”) due to the escape attempt.

42. Lt. Fogle responded by stating that there was no evidence that Aikens

attempted to escape and that he would not be sent to RHU.

5
 43. Officer Charles objected and stated that prior to moving Aikens to cell J-

03, he had inspected the cell and there was no hole or brick dust.

44. Yet, Lt. Fogle ordered Officer Charles to move Aikens and his cell mate

back to the dorm on J-Block, which housed several inmates.

45. Officer Coudriet provided his findings to Sgt. Chad Murray and provided

a report of this incident to Deputy Warden Edmundson.

46. Sgt. Murray advised Deputy Warden Eckard of Officer Coudriet’s

findings and showed him the handle that was used to dig and the bricks that had been

removed by Aikens’ during his escape attempt.

47. Although attempting to escape prison is a serious criminal offense, Deputy

Warden Eckard instructed Sgt. Murray to discard the evidence of Aikens’ escape attempt.

48. Officer Coudriet also notified Shift Commander Port of Aikens’ escape

attempt.

49. Yet, when completing his November 15, 2021 Shift Report, Shift

Commander Port wrote that there had been zero “misconducts and related incidents.”

50. When discussing the shift, Shift Commander Port walked through his Shift

Report with the Corrections Officers and stated that there had been zero incidents of

misconduct.

51. Thus, despite knowledge to the contrary, Shift Commander Port

affirmatively advised Corrections Officers, including Officer Rhonda Russell, that there

had been zero incidents of misconduct instead of advising the Corrections Officers of

Aikens’ escape attempt.

6
 52. On November 16, 2021, Officer Charles told Deputy Warden Edmundson

of Aikens’ escape attempt.

53. Deputy Warden Edmundson advised Officer Charles that all he could do

was search the J-Block dorm, despite Aikens’ criminal conduct in attempting to escape.

54. Upon searching, Officer Charles found slight digging near the window

next to Aikens’ bunk.

55. This was the start of another escape attempt.

56. Officer Charles called Lt. Fogle who once again stated that there was not

enough proof of an escape attempt.

57. Later, Lt. Fogle called Officer Charles and asked him if he wanted to

move Aikens to RHU.

58. Officer Charles stated that he did and Aikens was moved to RHU.

59. Upon being moved to RHU, no assessment was performed of Aikens’

security risk.

60. Aikens should have been declared a high security risk and not permitted to

leave the prison; however, Blair County’s flawed policy, practice or custom was to

perform no such assessments.

61. On November 16, 2021, the Shift Commander was Zachary Stitt.

62. Shift Commander Stitt was aware of Aikens’ escape attempts and that he

had been moved to RHU.

63. Yet, when completing his shift report, Shift Commander Stitt did not

identify Aikens when listing the misconducts and related incidents for the day.

7
 64. Instead, in his shift report and when meeting with Corrections Officers,

Shift Commander Stitt affirmatively represented to the Corrections Officers, including

Rhonda Russell, that there were no incidents of misconduct related to Aikens.

65. The evening of November 16, 2021, Aikens claimed that he fell out of his

bunk and requested to be transported to the hospital.

66. A prison nurse evaluated him and decided that hospitalization was

unnecessary.

67. Aikens purposely attempted to receive medical attention as part of another

escape plot.

68. Aikens was desperate to avoid facing the consequences of his actions and

repeatedly sought to escape, but no Blair County Prison official or administrator

conveyed information regarding Aikens’ escape attempts to law enforcement.

69. Instead, they actively concealed his escape attempts and affirmatively

misrepresented that Aikens had been involved in zero incidents of misconduct to their

own Corrections Officers, including Officer Rhonda Russell.

C. Officer Russell is Charged with Transporting 8 Inmates to Central

Court, including Aiken, yet is Not Told About the Escape Attempts

70. On November 17, 2021, Blair County Corrections Officers Rhonda

Russell and Brett Carruthers were ordered to transport eight inmates, including Aikens, to

Blair County Central Court.

71. Blair County’s policy, practice or custom was that a prisoner’s

commitment to RHU did not automatically disqualify him from being discharged from

the prison for court proceedings.

8
 72. It was the Warden, Deputy Warden or Lieutenants’ responsibility to

specifically note release restrictions in each inmate’s file.

73. Unfortunately, it was Blair County’s custom and practice that no security

risk assessment was performed for inmates housed in RHU.

74. And, it was Blair County’s policy, practice or custom that prisoners who

posed high security risks, such as those who had attempted to escape, could be

transported out of the prison for court proceedings.

75. Aikens’ file contained no reference to his escape attempts or increased

security risk.

76. Instead, these Blair County Prison officials ordered Aikens to be

transported from Blair County Prison to Blair County Central Court despite knowledge of

his escape attempts.

77. The Blair County Committing Officer Lisa Brumbaugh was responsible

for all temporary releases from the Blair County Prison on November 17, 2021, including

those releases to Central Court for preliminary hearings.

78. Committing Officer Brumbaugh should have been apprised of information

pertaining to Aikens’ escape attempts by Blair County Prison officials.

79. Committing Officer Brumbaugh, as was the customary practice, had a

conversation with Officers Russell and Carruthers, to advise them of anything they

needed to know about the inmates they were transporting.

80. As Committing Officer Brumbaugh was advised that there were no

genuine security risks posed by Aikens and the other inmates being transported, his file

was silent on the issue and the Shift Reports affirmatively stated that there had been no

9
incidents of misconduct involving Aikens, Committing Officer Brumbaugh advised

Officers Russell and Carruthers that there was nothing that they needed to know about

Aikens.

81. Thus, notwithstanding the representations that there had been zero

incidents of misconduct relating to Aikens, there had been serious, relevant misconduct –

prison escape attempts.

82. Had Officers Russell and Carruthers been informed of Aikens’ escape

attempts rather than receiving misinformation, Officers Russell and Carruthers would

have taken additional precautions when transporting and guarding Aikens.

D. Despite Numerous Criminal Hearings, Central Court Fails to Provide

Adequate Security

83. Preliminary hearings in recently filed criminal cases in the City of Altoona

are heard in Blair County Central Court each Wednesday.

84. Two Magisterial District Justices preside over the preliminary hearings in

two separate courtrooms.

85. On any given Wednesday, there can be between 15 and 40 preliminary

hearings.

86. One civilian staff member from Altoona is present for the purpose of

handling the police files and an Altoona police officer is present in the role of court

liaison to coordinate the appearances of the Altoona police officers who will be

testifying.

87. Participants in the hearings not only include attorneys, judges, police

officers, victims and witnesses, but also incarcerated and released criminal defendants.

10
 88. Incarcerated defendants are transported to Central Court by Blair County

Corrections Officers and Blair County Sheriff’s Deputies.

89. The defendants include individuals accused of felonies and violent crimes.

90. Yet, there was no security provided at Central Court or any other

Magisterial District Judge building in Blair County.

91. District Attorney Peter Weeks raised this concern with Blair County

officials for years.

92. Still, no security was provided by Blair County prior to November 17,

2021.

93. Throughout the day, the incarcerated defendants wait for their cases to be

called in one of two locked holding cells, separated by sex, within Central Court.

94. The holding cells were next to each other on one side of the hallway.

95. Across the hall were two additional rooms utilized by defense lawyers to

meet with their incarcerated clients.

96. The holding cells each had one door, thus only one entrance or exit.

97. The holding cell doors each had a small window, but those were covered

to prevent anyone from seeing in or out.

98. When called for his or her preliminary hearing, an incarcerated defendant

is escorted to the courtroom by a Corrections Officer or Sheriff’s Deputy while the

additional Corrections Officers or Sheriff’s Deputies remain in the holding cells with the

remaining incarcerated defendants.

11
 99. While surveillance cameras were present in the hallways between the

holding cells and attorney conference rooms, no security cameras were present inside the

holding cells.

E. Aikens Plots to Escape from Central Court

100. On November 17, 2021, twenty-five cases were scheduled for preliminary

hearings at Central Court.

101. Courtroom 2 was being used by the attorneys and police officers to review

the cases, while the preliminary hearings were held in Courtroom 1.

102. Sgt. Bistline was the Altoona Police Officer assigned as the court liaison

and was present in plain clothes.

103. Sgt. Bistline was armed with his Altoona police department-issued Sig

Sauer P226 .40 caliber pistol.

104. At the time, Sgt. Bistline had been an Altoona police officer for more than

40 years and was 73 years old.

105. Officers Russell and Carruthers transported eight Blair County Prison

inmates to Central Court.

106. The six male inmates were held in one room and the two female inmates

were held in another room.

107. Officer Russell was armed with a Blair County-issued Glock 17 9mm

pistol.

108. The Blair County practice, procedure or custom at the time was that a

Corrections Officer could come into direct physical contact with inmates – often alone –

even though he or she was armed with a firearm.

12
 109. About 1½ hours after transporting the inmates to Central Court, the Blair

County Corrections Officers were joined by two Blair County Sheriff’s Deputies.

110. Over the course of his stay in the holding cell on November 17, Aikens

plotted his escape from Central Court.

111. Aikens had attempted to remove his handcuffs.

112. Aikens bent his handcuffs to the extent that they had to be replaced by

Officer Carruthers.

113. Aikens also insisted that he needed to use the bathroom several times

while at Central Court to see if an opportunity to escape arose.

114. During Aikens’ first four trips to the bathroom, he noticed that the

Sheriff’s Deputies and the Corrections Officers utilized the handcuffs differently.

115. While both unlocked one cuff so that Aikens could use the bathroom,

Sheriff’s Deputies locked the empty cuff to the metal ring on the restraint belt around

Aikens’ waist; however, Corrections Officers did not secure the empty cuff, which would

allow Aikens to maneuver the empty cuff through the ring and have complete,

unrestrained movement of both of his hands and arms.

116. While Sheriff’s Deputies underwent specific training and were taught how

to utilize handcuffs to ensure that the empty cuff remained secured, Corrections Officers

never received such training.

117. Thus, the training provided to Blair County Sheriff’s Deputies and

Corrections Officers was inconsistent despite that obvious risk posed by allowing violent

prisoners to become unrestrained.

13
 F. The Sheriff’s Deputies Abandon Officer Russell

118. Prior to arriving at Central Court on November 17, one of the Sheriff’s

Deputies, Larry Hopkins, was warned by a Corporal with the Blair County Sheriff’s

Department that one of the inmates had attempted to escape from prison the prior day.

119. At one point on November 17, Deputy Hopkins entered the male holding

cell and inquired which prisoner had attempted to escape and the other inmates pointed at

Aikens.

120. This information was not shared with Officers Russell or Carruthers.

121. Around 2:17 p.m., Officer Carruthers escorted a male inmate into

Courtroom 1.

122. At that time, the Sheriff’s Deputies were still present and witnessed

Officer Carruthers escort the inmate into Courtroom 1.

123. Yet, approximately seven or eight minutes later, around 2:25 p.m., the two

Sheriff’s Deputies left Central Court to return the two female inmates to Blair County

Prison.

124. The Sheriff’s Deputies knowingly left Officer Russell alone with the five

remaining male inmates that were housed in the single, locked holding cell even though

Deputy Hopkins was aware of Aikens’ escape attempts.

125. Officer Carruthers was unaware that the Sheriff’s Deputies left and Officer

Russell was left alone guarding those five male inmates.

126. Corrections Officers and Sheriff’s Deputies do not answer to each other

and are part of separate agencies within Blair County.

14
 127. So, it should have been clearly delineated which agency was responsible

for courtroom and inmate security at Central Court, as shared duties between overlapping

agencies can create confusion.

128. There was a failure to ensure that an appropriate chain-of-command

existed to approve or deny the Sheriff’s Deputies’ departures.

129. Instead, Blair County had a policy, practice or custom whereby Sheriff’s

Deputies present to assist with guarding and transporting prisoners would leave Central

Court at their own discretion often without notifying Corrections Officers.

G. Aikens Attacks Officer Russell and Takes Her Hostage

130. Aikens noticed when the Sheriff’s Deputies left and was surprised that

Officer Russell was left alone guarding the male inmates, particularly with Aikens’ own

criminal history.

131. So, at approximately 3:05 p.m., approximately 40 minutes after the

Sheriff’s Deputies left, Aikens requested to use the bathroom for the fifth time.

132. At this time, Officer Carruthers was still in Courtroom 1 securing an

inmate.

133. Officer Russell released Aikens from the holding cell and escorted him to

the bathroom.

134. When doing so, Officer Russell also released the handcuff around Aikens’

right wrist.

135. The loose handcuff was not secured to the metal ring on the front center of

the restraint belt that was around Aikens’ waist, so Aikens was able to maneuver the

15
loose handcuff through the metal ring and gain full mobility of both of his arms and

hands.

136. The belt around his waist no longer restricted his range of motion.

137. Aikens exited the bathroom about four minutes later.

138. He walked past Officer Russell who was alone in the hallway.

139. All the rooms other than the locked male inmate holding area were empty.

140. Aikens held his hands together, pretending that he was still restrained.

141. A paper towel concealed the loose cuff.

142. While Officer Russell reached for the keys in her pocket, Aikens, who had

been walking ahead of her, spun around and reached for the holstered pistol strapped to

Officer Russell’s hip.

143. Aikens drove Officer Russell against the wall and put his right hand

around her neck before continuing to try to obtain her firearm.

144. Officer Russell was pushed into the male holding cell door several times,

but it did not open as it was locked.

145. Aikens eventually forced Officer Russell into the unlocked female holding

cell door.

146. The unlocked door buckled under their combined weight and Aikens fell

on top of Officer Russell.

147. The holding cell door closed behind them.

148. According to Aikens, Russell’s isolation, without assistance, emboldened

him to attempt to escape; in fact, he could not believe that such an opportunity presented

itself.

16
 149. There should always be more than one officer at a time guarding inmates.

150. There should always be more than one officer escorting inmates,

particularly violent criminals like Aikens, to use the bathroom.

151. Yet, Blair County policy, practice or custom permitted Corrections

Officers to guard several inmates alone without assistance and escort inmates who had

been released from restraints to the restroom alone.

152. Blair County failed to provide training to Corrections Officers regarding

weapon retention, self-defense, the use-of-force continuum, handcuffing technique and

the supervision of prisoners while in the bathroom.

153. Blair County failed to provide continuity in how prison security is handled

between Corrections Officers and Sheriff’s Deputies.

154. Training and policies must be consistent between all Blair County law

enforcement agencies

155. Blair County failed to have sufficient oversight to ensure the training and

policies are consistently followed.

156. By approximately 3:10 p.m., Aikens had taken Officer Russell hostage in

the female holding cell.

H. Sgt. Bistline Intervenes in the Hostage Situation and then Retreats

157. Attorneys nearby heard noise in the female holding cell and sought Sgt.

Bistline’s assistance.

158. Sgt. Bistline went down the hallway, which was empty.

159. Sgt. Bistline pushed the door open to the female holding cell.

17
 160. At that time, Aikens had physical control of Officer Russell and her

firearm.

161. Aikens had Officer Russell in front of him, like a human shield, and

pointed the firearm at Sgt. Bistline’s face.

162. Aikens did not shoot.

163. Rather, Aikens instructed Sgt. Bistline to back off.

164. Sgt. Bistline retreated to the hallway, put his left hand out signaling

compliance and retreat, and exited the room.

165. Officer Russell was Aikens’ hostage.

I. Rather than Issue a Warning, Deescalate, Negotiate or Call for

Backup, Sgt. Bistline Hastily Reenters the Room and Shoots Officer
Russell to Death

166. Sgt. Bistline now had time to deliberate.

167. Aikens had nowhere to escape and Officer Russell was a subdued,

cooperating hostage.

168. According to Aikens, he never pointed the firearm at Officer Russell.

169. Sgt. Bistline chose not to attempt to negotiate with Aikens or deescalate

the situation.

170. Sgt. Bistline chose not to warn Aikens that if he did not surrender, deadly

force could be used against him even though it was feasible for him to do so.

171. Sgt. Bistline chose not to call for back-up, SWAT, crisis intervention or

hostage negotiators.

172. Instead, Sgt. Bistline pulled his firearm from its holster, which he knew to

be loaded, and walked back towards the doorway.

18
 173. Upon entering the doorway, Sgt. Bistline immediately fired a shot striking

Officer Russell, who was in front of Aikens, leaning forward and being used as a shield,

shooting her through the top of her head.

174. According to Aikens, he had lowered the firearm prior to Sgt. Bistline

firing his weapon.

175. According to Aikens, he only sought to lock Officer Russell in the holding

cell so that he could escape and wanted her firearm to ensure that she did not shoot him.

176. By intentionally firing his weapon, Sgt. Bistline intended to cause death or

serious physical harm.

177. Sgt. Bistline consciously disregarded a great risk of serious harm by not

warning Aikens, attempting to negotiate, or calling in back-up or specialists.

178. Sgt. Bistline consciously disregarded a great risk of harm by not

considering the risks posed to Officer Russell by entering the room after he saw that

Officer Russell was being used as a human shield and discharging his weapon directly at

her.

179. Aikens, who was neither shot nor injured, never attempted to shoot Sgt.

Bistline.

180. Aikens fell to the floor and had his hands in a raised position, as Officer

Russell collapsed on top of him.

181. Officer Rhonda Russell died at the age of 47.

19
 COUNT I - Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

182. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 181 as if fully set forth at

length herein.

183. All named Defendants were state actors at all times relevant to the claims

in this Complaint.

184. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

185. Rhonda Russell had constitutional rights to life and liberty, which were

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

186. It is well established that the Constitution protects a citizen’s liberty

interest in her own bodily security.

187. Yet, these Defendants violated Rhonda Russell’s due process rights, which

are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. State-created Danger

188. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port, Zachary Stitt, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona,

Pennsylvania, and the Estate of George E. Bistline violated Rhonda Russell’s Fourteenth

Amendment Rights under a state-created danger theory.

20
 189. It has been clearly established in the Third Circuit for many years that a

state-created danger violates due process.

190. Indeed, it has been clearly established that law enforcement officers may

be liable where they affirmatively place an individual in danger.

191. State actors may be liable for affirmatively exposing a plaintiff to a deadly

risk of harm through highly dangerous conduct or through using their authority as law

enforcement officers to create a dangerous situation or to make the victim more

vulnerable to danger.

192. The harm suffered by Rhonda Russell – being attacked by Aikens as he

attempted to escape and being shot by Sgt. Bistline as he responded – was foreseeable

and direct.

193. It was foreseeable to Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, James

Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port, Zachary Stitt and Larry

Hopkins given their knowledge of Aikens’s extensive criminal history and repeated

attempts to escape.

194. Harm to Rhonda Russell was also foreseeable to City of Altoona,

Pennsylvania and Sgt. Bistline given Sgt. Bistline’s knowledge that Rhonda Russell was

being used as a human shield when he reentered the holding cell and intentionally pointed

and discharged his firearm in her direction.

195. Next, as described more fully throughout the Complaint, Defendants Blair

County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port,

Zachary Stitt, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and the Estate of George E.

Bistline acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience.

21
 196. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port, and Zachary Stitt enhanced Rhonda Russell’s

vulnerability to attack by misrepresenting Aikens’ misconduct and the risks he posed, and

concealing and dissuading reports of his escape attempts.

197. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, and David Fogle enhanced Rhonda Russell’s vulnerability to attack by

releasing Aikens from RHU and permitting him to be transported to Central Court,

particularly without any heightened security precautions, despite his escape attempts.

198. Defendant Larry Hopkins enhanced Rhonda Russell’s vulnerability to

attack by leaving Central Court, which left Rhonda Russell alone to guard several male

inmates, despite knowledge of Aikens’ escape attempts.

199. Defendants City of Altoona, Pennsylvania and the Estate of George E.

Bistline also enhanced Rhonda Russell’s vulnerability to serious danger.

200. The use of deadly force, in conscious disregard of substantial risk of harm

to innocent parties, is a constitutional due process violation.

201. The need to consider the risk to third parties prior to using deadly force is

obvious and has been clearly established for many years.

202. Rhonda Russell had a clearly established right not to have a police officer

point a gun at her and fire if she herself posed no danger.

203. Rhonda Russell had a clearly established right to have her safety

considered before deadly force was employed in her direction.

204. Moreover, the law is clear that police officers are required to give a

warning before using deadly force if giving a warning is feasible.

22
 205. It was feasible for Sgt. Bistline to give a warning to Aikens before firing

his gun, as Sgt. Bistline exited the holding cell, there was only one exit to the cell from

which Aikens could attempt to escape, Aikens was not pointing his gun at Officer Russell

and Officer Russell was a compliant hostage.

206. Sgt. Bistline fired his weapon with an intent to cause death or serious

harm.

207. Sgt. Bistline consciously disregarded the risks posed to Rhonda Russell

when he hastily reentered the holding cell where a compliant hostage was being held and

used as a human shield in a room from which Aikens had no other means to escape.

208. The obviousness of the risks posed by Sgt. Bistline’s conduct

demonstrates a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.

209. Third, Rhonda Russell was a foreseeable victim of the acts of Defendants

Blair County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel

Port, Zachary Stitt, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and the Estate of

George E. Bistline.

210. As set forth herein and throughout the complaint, Defendants Blair

County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port,

Zachary Stitt, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and the Estate of George E.

Bistline affirmatively used their authority in a way to create a danger and/or rendered

Rhonda Russell more vulnerable to danger than if they had never acted.

211. As set forth herein and throughout the Complaint, Defendants Blair

County, Pennsylvania, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port,

23
Zachary Stitt, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and the Estate of George E.

Bistline engaged in affirmative acts that made Rhonda Russell more vulnerable to harm.

212. These affirmative acts were misuses of authority that created an

opportunity for harm to Rhonda Russell, which was foreseeable.

B. Policies, Practices and Customs

213. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, David Fogle, James Ott and City of Altoona, Pennsylvania violated Rhonda

Russell’s Fourteenth Amendment rights under a Monell theory of liability.

214. Defendants Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle,

and James Ott are decisionmakers possessing authority to implement policies, practices

or customs.

215. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson and David Fogle had policies, practice or customs whereby:

a. A prisoner’s commitment to RHU did not automatically disqualify

him from being discharged from the prison for court proceedings;

b. No security risk assessment was performed for inmates housed in

RHU;

c. Prisoners who posed high security risks, such as those who had

attempted to escape, could be transported out of the prison for

court proceedings;

d. Prisoners who posed high security risks, such as those who had

attempted to escape, could be transported out of the prison for

24
 court proceedings without any security precautions being taken,

implemented or enforced;

e. Corrections Officers would come into direct physical contact with

inmates – often alone – even though the Corrections Officer was

armed with a firearm;

f. Corrections Officers would guard several inmates alone without

assistance;

g. Corrections Officers would escort inmates who had been released

from restraints to the restroom alone;

h. Corrections Officers would unlock an inmate’s handcuffs without

securing the loose cuff;

i. Corrections Officers transporting inmates would not be fully

advised of inmates’ criminal histories and prison conduct;

j. Shift Reports, Shift Commanders and Prison officials would fail to

fully and thoroughly document and advise of inmate misconduct;

k. Prison Officials, Corrections Officers and Sheriff’s Deputies would

not openly share information regarding inmates even where their

duties overlapped;

l. Prison officials would conceal escape attempts from other law

enforcement agencies;

m. Prison officials would fail to fully and thoroughly investigate

escape attempts;

n. Prison officials would dissuade the reporting of escape attempts;

25
 o. Prisoners would be moved to the general population when they

should be on suicide watch or otherwise more heavily guarded;

p. Security would not be provided at Central Court or other

Magisterial District Offices in Blair County; and

q. Surveillance cameras would not be utilized in holding cells at

Central Court or other Magisterial District Courts in Blair County.

216. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania and James Ott had policies,

practice or customs whereby:

a. Sheriff’s Deputies present to assist with guarding and transporting

prisoners would leave Central Court at their own discretion often

without notifying Corrections Officers; and

b. Prison Officials, Corrections Officers and Sheriff’s Deputies would

not openly share information regarding inmates even where their

duties overlapped.

217. Defendant City of Altoona, Pennsylvania had policies, practice or customs

whereby:

a. Police officers would fail to warn prior to the use of deadly force;

b. Police officers would fail to consider the risks posed to innocent

parties when implementing deadly force; and

c. Police officers would fail to take steps to negotiate, contact

specialists or otherwise defuse hostage situations.

26
 218. These policies, practices and customs were made, endorsed, instituted

and/or permitted with deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of others,

including Rhonda Russell.

219. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, David Fogle, James Ott and City of Altoona, Pennsylvania acted with

deliberate indifference, which resulted in the deprivation of Rhonda Russell’s

Constitutional rights.

220. These policies, practices and customs made, endorsed, instituted and/or

permitted by the Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard,

Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, James Ott and City of Altoona, Pennsylvania were a

direct cause of harm to Rhonda Russell.

C. Failure to Train

221. The failures of Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James

Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, James Ott and City of Altoona, Pennsylvania,

to adequately and consistently train their employees reflects a deliberate indifference to

the Constitutional rights of Rhonda Russell.

222. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson and David Fogle failed to have appropriate, consistent polices, customs and

practices in place and/or adequately educate or train Blair County Prison employees,

including Corrections Officers, regarding the following:

a. Weapon retention;

b. Self-defense;

c. The use-of-force continuum;

27
d. Handcuffing technique, including specifically how to secure a

loose handcuff and the risk posed by the failure to do so;

e. The supervision of prisoners using the bathroom;

f. Documentation of prisoner incidents, such as escape attempts, that

would raise safety concerns;

g. The reporting of prisoner escape attempts to all corrections officers

and sheriff deputies involved in prisoner transport;

h. Appropriately handling internal investigations of escape attempts

to ensure they are done adequately and do not interfere with the

administration of justice;

i. Reporting of escape attempts to law enforcement;

j. Prisoner transport, including the transport of prisoners housed in

RHU or that are high-risk;

k. Security risk assessment of prisoners housed in RHU;

l. Corrections Officers’ physical contact with inmates while carrying

a firearm;

m. The correct ratio of Corrections Officers or Sheriff’s Deputies that

should be guarding transported inmates;

n. Sharing information of prisoners’ criminal histories and instances

of prison misconduct;

o. Security at Central Court and other Blair County Magisterial

District Courts;

28
 p. Sharing of information between Blair County government agencies

with overlapping duties and responsibilities;

q. The chain-of-command to be utilized when Blair County Sheriff’s

Deputies and Corrections Officers are working together at Central

Court or other Magisterial District Courts;

r. The respective duties of Blair County Sheriff’s Deputies and

Corrections Officers working together at Central Court; and

s. Recognition of prisoners that should not be transported out of the

prison or moved to the general population.

223. Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania and James Ott failed to have

appropriate, consistent polices, customs and practices in place and/or adequately educate

or train Sheriff’s Deputies regarding the following:

a. Prisoner transport, including the transport of prisoners housed in

RHU or that are high-risk;

b. The correct ratio of Corrections Officers or Sheriff’s Deputies that

should be guarding transported inmates;

c. Under what circumstances Sheriff’s Deputies assisting with

transporting and guarding prisoners can leave Central Court;

d. The supervision of prisoners using the bathroom;

e. Sharing information of prisoners’ criminal histories and instances

of prison misconduct;

f. Security at Central Court and other Blair County Magisterial

District Courts;

29
 g. Sharing of information between Blair County government agencies

with overlapping duties and responsibilities;

h. The chain-of-command to be utilized when Blair County Sheriff’s

Deputies and Corrections Officers are working together at Central

Court; and

i. The respective duties of Blair County Sheriff’s Deputies and

Corrections Officers working together at Central Court.

224. Defendant City of Altoona, Pennsylvania failed to have appropriate,

consistent polices, customs and practices in place and/or adequately educate or train

Sheriff’s Deputies regarding the following:

a. Hostage situations;

b. De-escalation;

c. Warning before using deadly force and when such warnings are

feasible;

d. When to negotiate or call for backup or specialists in a hostage

situation; and

e. Recognition of the risks posed to innocent or third parties before

using deadly force.

225. The failure to train and enact policies in these regards amounts to a

deliberate indifference on behalf of Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate,

James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle, James Ott and City of Altoona,

Pennsylvania.

226. Indeed, the need to train and enact policies on these topics is obvious.

30
 227. These defendants knew of the magnitude of the problems and risks posed,

yet, deliberately chose not train and enact policies; instead, these Defendant acquiesced in

the inappropriate policies, practices or customs set forth throughout the Complaint.

D. Supervisory Liability

228. Furthermore, supervisory liability exists against Defendants Abbie Tate,

James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson, David Fogle and James Ott.

229. As set forth throughout the Complaint, these supervisors acquiesced in

various employee’s conduct and certain policies, practices and customs.

230. Moreover, these supervisors failed to train and enact necessary policies or

practices.

231. These supervisors were aware that unreasonable risks existed, yet were

indifferent to those risks.

E. Damages

232. Rhonda Russell suffered physical and emotional harm and monetary loss

and her Estate is entitled to and seeks all available damages recoverable against

Defendants Blair County, Pennsylvania, Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun Edmundson,

David Fogle, Nathaniel Port, Zachary Stitt, James Ott, Larry Hopkins, City of Altoona,

Pennsylvania, and the Estate of George E. Bistline, including but not limited to the

following:

a. Loss of life;

b. Loss of earnings;

c. Loss of earning capacity;

d. Loss of work life expectancy;

31
 e. Funeral and burial expenses;

f. Loss of pleasures and enjoyment of life;

g. Physical and mental pain, suffering and inconvenience;

h. Impairment of her general health, strength and vitality;

i. Worry, anxiety, apprehension, embarrassment and frustration;

j. Undue mental anguish and personal indignity;

k. Diminished reputation or status; and

l. Attorney’s fees, costs and interest.

233. Additionally, the conduct of Defendants Abbie Tate, James Eckard, Shaun

Edmundson, David Fogle, Nathaniel Port, Zachary Stitt, James Ott, Larry Hopkins, and

the Estate of George E. Bistline (who have all been named in their individual capacity as

conduct in their official capacity is a claim against their respective employers) warrants

the imposition of punitive damages, as each individual’s conduct involved reckless or

callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others, including Rhonda Russell.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands all available damages against Defendants,

jointly and severally, plus interest, attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages and any other

damages deemed proper.

COUNT II – Wrongful Death Act

Plaintiff vs. All Defendants

234. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 233 as if

they were set forth in their entirety herein.

32
 235. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the beneficiaries under and by

virtue of the Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8301, and the applicable Rules of

Procedure and decisional law.

236. Under Pennsylvania law, wrongful death and survival actions are not

substantive causes of action; rather, they provide a vehicle through which a plaintiff can

recover for unlawful conduct that results in death.

237. A Section 1983 claim is recognized as a sufficient underlying basis

for wrongful death and survival claims under Pennsylvania law.

238. Rhonda Russell left surviving beneficiaries entitled to take under the

Wrongful Death Act.

239. As a result of the conduct of all Defendants, jointly and severally, as set

forth herein, Rhonda Russell was caused grave injuries and death resulting in the

entitlement to damages by the beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act.

240. Plaintiff, as Administrator of the Estate of Rhonda Russell, claims all

available expenses recoverable under the Wrongful Death Act including, but not limited

to estate administration, funeral and burial expenses.

241. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for monetary support that Rhonda Russell would have provided to the

beneficiaries during their lifetime, including, but not limited to, the support provided or

which could have been expected to have been provided to the beneficiaries.

242. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for the services provided or which could have expected to have been performed

in the future by Rhonda Russell.

33
 243. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for the loss of companionship, comfort, society, guidance, solace and protection

of Rhonda Russell.

244. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for the beneficiaries’ emotional and psychological loss that accompanied the

death of Rhonda Russell.

245. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for all pecuniary loss suffered by the beneficiaries.

246. On behalf of the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims

damages for the full measure of damages allowed under the Wrongful Death Act and

decisional law interpreting said Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands all available damages against Defendants,

jointly and severally, plus interest, costs, punitive damages and any other damages

deemed proper by the Court.

COUNT III – Survival Act

Plaintiff vs. All Defendants

247. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 246 as if

they were set forth in their entirety herein.

248. Plaintiff brings this Survival Action on behalf of the Estate of Rhonda

Russell under and by virtue of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8302, and the applicable Rules of

Procedure and decisional law.

249. Rhonda Russell died intestate.

34
 250. Rhonda Russell left surviving individuals entitled to take under the

Survival Act.

251. As a result of the conduct of all Defendants, jointly and severally, as set

forth herein, Rhonda Russell was caused grave injuries and death resulting in the

entitlement to damages by the beneficiaries under the Survival Act.

252. On behalf of the Survival Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims damages for

the amount of lost earnings and/or benefits of decedents between the time of injury and

death.

253. On behalf of the Survival Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims damages for

the economic losses to the Estate of Rhonda Russell and resulting from her death.

254. On behalf of the Survival Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims damages for

all loss of income, retirement, and/or Social Security as a result of Rhonda Russell’s

death.

255. On behalf of the Survival Act beneficiaries, Plaintiff claims damages for

the pain and suffering endured by Rhonda Russell prior to her death, including, but not

limited to, physical pain and suffering, mental pain and suffering, and the fright and

mental suffering attributed to the peril leading to her death.

256. Plaintiff claims the full measure of damages under the Survival Act and

decisional law interpreting the same.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages against Defendants, jointly and

severally, in a sum in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, plus interest, costs,

punitive damages, and any other damages deemed proper by the Court.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

35
 BRACKEN LAMBERTON, LLC

By __________________________
Robert A. Bracken
PA ID No. 206095
Charles A. Lamberton
PA ID No. 78043
707 Grant Street
Gulf Tower, Suite 1705
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel. (412) 533-9281
Fax (412) 533-7030

36