case 2:16-cv-00229-rbs-lrl document 17-1 filed … · united states district court for the eastern...

Case 2:16-cv-00229-RBS-LRL Document 17-1 Filed 06/21/16 of 2 PageID# 369

Case 2:16-cv-00229-RBS-LRL Document 17-1 Filed 06/21/16 of 2 PageID# 370

Case 2:16-cv-00229-RBS-LRL Document 17-2 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 371

Case 2:16-cv-00229-R

BS

-LRL D

ocument 17-3 F

iled 06/21/16 Page 1 of 3 P

ageID# 382

Case 2:16-cv-00229-R

BS

-LRL D

ocument 17-3 F


ageID# 383

Case 2:16-cv-00229-R

BS

-LRL D

ocument 17-3 F


ageID# 384

Case 2:16-cv-00229-R

BS

-LRL D

ocument 17-4 F


ageID# 385

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division ROXANNE ADAMS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMYCHEAL M. MITCHELL, Deceased, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:16-cv-229 v. NAPHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants.

TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION TO RESPOND TO, AND PREVENT, RETALIATION BY JAIL PERSONNEL AGAINST INMATE WITNESSES

COMES NOW Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M.

Mitchell, Deceased, by counsel, and moves this Court for immediate relief to respond to, and

prevent, retaliation by jail personnel against inmate witnesses. Relevant facts are set forth herein

and the basis for appropriate relief is more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum in

support of this motion.

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 19, 2015, 24-year-old Jamycheal Mitchell was pronounced dead after

fellow Hampton Roads Regional Jail (“HRRJ”/ “Jail”) detainees discovered him unresponsive in

his Jail cell. An autopsy performed by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner listed the cause of

Mitchell’s death as “Probable cardiac arrhythmia accompanying wasting syndrome of unknown

etiology.” Assistant Chief Medical Examiner Wendy M. Gunther, M.D., described Mitchell as

“nearly cachectic,” meaning the loss of body mass that cannot be reversed nutritionally. Soon

thereafter, Jail officials publicly announced that they were blameless in Mitchell’s death.

Case 2:16-cv-00229-RBS-LRL Document 17 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 359

2

However, inmates confined with Mitchell contacted his family and disclosed the abuse and

neglect that Mitchell suffered at the hands of Jail personnel, including Jail medical care

providers. The assertions of Mitchell’s fellow inmates/detainees were detailed in a civil rights

complaint filed by Mitchell’s aunt in her capacity as Administrator of Mitchell’s Estate. With

their permission, the inmates/detainees who reported the abuse and neglect suffered by Mitchell

were mentioned by name in the complaint along with their observations. Beginning almost

immediately after the complaint was filed and became known to the HRRJ community and the

public at large, the inmates/detainees who provided information to Plaintiff’s counsel, and who

were still incarcerated at HRRJ, have been subject to threats and other abuse by Jail personnel.

2. In a series of letters and phone calls with counsel for Defendant HRRJ

Superintendent Simons, counsel for Plaintiff sought to obtain protection for the still incarcerated

inmates/detainees who are prospective witnesses in this case. Over the course of a few weeks,

two of the four prospective witnesses who are still incarcerated were moved to another jail

facility. However, those two witnesses, and the other two witnesses who remain at HRRJ, report

continuing threats and abuse. Apparently, correctional officers at HRRJ and at the jail to which

two of the prospective inmate witnesses have been transferred have been, among other things,

taunting and threatening the prospective inmate witnesses.

3. Plaintiff seeks immediate relief to respond to and protect witnesses in this case

from correctional officer intimidation and abuse.

FACTS

4. On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of

Jamycheal M. Mitchell, Deceased, by counsel, filed a federal complaint in this Court alleging

deprivations of Mr. Mitchell’s civil rights resulting in his suffering and wrongful death while


3

confined at Hampton Roads Regional Jail (“HRRJ”). Among others, Defendants include HRRJ

Superintendent Col. Simons, HRRJ Assistant Superintendent Lt. Col. Taylor, the HRRJ

Authority, and multiple HRRJ correctional officers.

5. Prior to the filing of the complaint, the undersigned had been provided with

information from approximately nine inmates with personal knowledge of Mr. Mitchell’s

circumstances, including of wrongful and abusive conduct of HRRJ correctional officers towards

Mr. Mitchell. At the time that the Complaint was filed, four inmates were still incarcerated at

HRRJ, and, with their consent, were cited by name in the Complaint:

Steven Gray Jade Johnson David Hurst Dominique Vaughan DOC No. 1302821 DOC No. 1373588 DOC No. 1156433 DOC No. 1467303 6. Immediately after the case was filed, HRRJ correctional officers began to target

the above-named inmates with threats, denials of food, and other wrongful and abusive practices.

7. As a result, on May 11, 2016, the undersigned sent a letter to HRRJ

Superintendent Col. Simons, copying his outside counsel, Jeff Rosen, Esq., as well as several

other persons who the media had reported were investigating the matter. The letter is attached as

Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by reference (all exhibits mentioned herein and attached

hereto are incorporated herein by reference). The letter requested HRRJ Superintendent Col.

Simons to take appropriate steps to ensure the health and safety of all of the above inmates, and

the protection of their civil rights.

8. Thereafter, the undersigned received a telephone call from Attorney Rosen, who

informed the undersigned that the four inmates discussed in the above-referenced May 11 letter

had been interviewed by an unidentified person. Mr. Rosen told the undersigned that one inmate

had expressed concern for his safety and had been relocated. (The undersigned subsequently


4

learned that inmate Mr. Hurst has been relocated). Mr. Rosen told the undersigned that the other

three inmates had stated that they did not feel unsafe.

9. However, an investigation by the undersigned’s firm revealed that inmates

Johnson, Vaughan, and Gray had never told the foregoing unidentified person that they felt safe.

To the contrary, all three are concerned for their safety now, and as of the time that the filing of

the lawsuit became known by correctional officers.

10. The investigation by the undersigned’s firm revealed that the foregoing inmates

continued to be mistreated as a result of their being mentioned in the lawsuit. Specifically, the

foregoing inmates, or certain of them, have:

• received threats of physical harm, such as, “you are walking the Green Mile, Dead Man Walking,” and “you are going to get what you deserve.” Additionally, one inmate’s family was threatened.

• been characterized as “snitch[es]” in front of other inmates. This is a very dangerous

characterization in a jail and can lead to physical violence by other inmates

• had their food tampered with, or have received threats that their food will be tampered with

• been denied showers

• had the water to their cells turned off (the undersigned understands that water was

recently turned back on in one of the cells)

• been subject to disparate treatment by correctional officers (as compared to other inmates)

• had letters written by the undersigned confiscated in the unusual searching of their room

by four sergeants, some of whom are Defendants in the above-referenced matter

• been denied medical care

• had at least one grievance filed by them improperly destroyed

• been placed in segregation for insufficient reasons

• been punished for fictitious violations


5

Additionally, calls by the inmates to the undersigned’s firm have been blocked.

Letters from the inmates to the undersigned are attached as Exhibit 2 and are

incorporated herein by reference (certain of the letters, all handwritten, are difficult to read;

Plaintiff is therefore also attaching as part of Exhibit 2, and incorporating herein by reference,

typed documents that represent the best efforts of the undersigned’s staff to transcribe such

letters).

11. On May 20, 2016, the undersigned wrote to HRRJ Superintendent Col. Simons

concerning the foregoing, copying Attorney Rosen. In the letter, the undersigned stated that:

“[t]he continued subjection of these inmates to abuse by correctional officer Defendants

and friends of such Defendants apparently acting on their behalf necessitates the

immediate transfer of these inmates to another facility/facilities. Such transfer is necessary

to protect the rights, safety and health of these inmates.” (Emphasis in original). The May

20 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein by reference.

12. As was done in the case of the May 11, 2016 letter, the undersigned also copied

numerous officials on the May 20, 2016 letter who the media indicated had launched

investigations of the matter. The undersigned pursued this approach at that time rather than

turning to this Court for relief so that parties charged with maintaining custody and control of

inmates in the Commonwealth could independently formulate an efficient and cost-effective plan

of their design for safeguarding those inmates referenced in the Complaint who have been

threatened with retaliation and received other mistreatment.

13. On May 23, 2016, the undersigned and Attorney Rosen spoke concerning the

undersigned’s May 20 letter. During the call, Attorney Rosen claimed that the three inmates still

being held at HRRJ at the time had expressed that they felt safe. The undersigned replied that, as


6

reported to the undersigned, the inmates in question never expressed that they felt safe, and, in

actuality, continuously felt and feel threatened or otherwise unsafe. Attorney Rosen stated that

he would arrange for an unidentified individual to re-interview the inmates concerning whether

they felt safe. Counsel for the Plaintiff specifically stressed the need for an independent

interviewer owing to the fact that it is Jail personnel who are the source of the wrongful conduct

towards these inmates and their feelings of lack of safety. Attorney Rosen told the undersigned

that he hoped to call the undersigned the following day, May 24, 2016, with the findings from

the re-interview of the inmates. He remarked that it was his and the Superintendent’s preference

that these inmates be moved to another facility or facilities.

14. However, in a letter dated May 26, 2016, Attorney Rosen retreated from his

promise to have the subject inmates re-interviewed. Instead, he again claimed that the subject

inmates had been interviewed and had stated that they did not feel threatened. As noted above,

the subject inmates refute that they stated such. Attorney Rosen also stated that the matter could

be better addressed by an internal grievance process (which, of course, never rises above

Defendant Simons, Superintendent of HRRJ). He also asserted that unless the undersigned

represented the subject inmates, the undersigned lacked standing to address the matter. Attorney

Rosen’s letter is attached as Exhibit 4, and incorporated herein by reference.

15. On the same day, the undersigned sent a reply letter to Attorney Rosen, which is

attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and incorporated herein by reference. The undersigned noted that

Attorney Rosen had ignored his promise to have the subject inmates re-interviewed. As to Mr.

Rosen’s contention that the undersigned lacked standing to address the mistreatment of the

subject inmates, the undersigned stated:

“[t]he circumstances of this matter do not stem from the criminal charges for which these inmates were incarcerated (issues for their criminal counsel), but instead,


7

concern retaliation against federal witnesses in specific connection with the above lawsuit, including the serious issues I have previously written about (threats of physical harm, tampering with food, cutting off of water to cells, denial of medical care, etc.). I certainly have a right to seek to prevent federal witnesses in a case I am prosecuting from being the objects of wrongful retaliation, and I will pursue it with the Court in this case if necessary.”

16. Currently, two of the four subject inmates (Johnson and Gray) are still at HRRJ,

in the custody and control of the very persons that they have implicated in a federal civil rights

lawsuit. Although the other two inmates (Hurst and Vaughan) have been moved to another area

jail, the Western Tidewater Regional Jail (“WTRJ”), they report that they, too, have continued to

be taunted, threatened, and/or abused by correctional staff at that jail. They have also been

denied their prescribed medications. Evidence suggests that HRRJ staff have informed the

correctional staff at WTRJ of the reason for inmates Hurst and Vaughan’s transfers, and

evidence further suggests that HRRJ staff have encouraged these inmates’ new jailers to harass

them.

17. The undersigned has made several attempts to resolve this matter without Court

action. However, the undersigned’s good faith efforts have been thwarted or ignored. In

addition to needing to protect Plaintiff’s interests with regard to the free and unobstructed

testimony of these inmates, as an officer of the Court, the undersigned cannot sit by with the

knowledge that federal witnesses in the vulnerable status of inmates are being made subject to

unwarranted acts of abuse and intimidation simply as a result of providing information

concerning this case. Retaliation against witnesses undermines the rule of law and the very

integrity of the judicial process; respectfully, such wrongful acts cannot be tolerated in any form

if a just and fair judicial system is to endure.

18. Statements made by Hurst and Vaughan, the two inmates transferred away from

HRRJ, indicate that these inmates are still subject to the control or authority of Defendants


8

Superintendent Simons and the HRRJ Authority. Statements by WTRJ employees to Hurst and

Vaughan suggest that HRRJ Authority may be paying the costs of these two inmates at WTRJ.

HRRJ may also be responsible for providing medications for these two inmates – which is

apparently not being done. Based upon such, relief is sought herein on behalf of all four inmates

(Johnson, Vaughan, Hurst, and Gray), regardless of whether they are currently incarcerated/

detained at HRRJ or at WTRJ.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court intervene on

behalf of inmate witnesses Johnson, Vaughan, Hurst, and Gray, and, to ensure the preservation

of their health, safety and civil rights, ORDER the appointment of an appropriate outside party to

interview the subject inmates, to monitor continually their safety and circumstances, and to

report back to the Court upon the same. Plaintiff also respectfully requests the transfer of

inmates Gray and Johnson to another appropriate facility/facilities. Plaintiff also respectfully

requests such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

ROXANNE ADAMS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMYCHEAL M. MITCHELL, DECEASED

By: __________/s/______________________ Counsel Mark J. Krudys (VSB# 30718) THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC SunTrust Center 919 E. Main Street, Suite 2020 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 774-7950 Fax: (804) 381-4458 Email: [email protected] Web: www.krudys.com Counsel for Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M. Mitchell, Deceased


9

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of June 2016, I will electronically file the foregoing

pleading with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification

of the filing to the following:

Ryan Furgurson, Esq. Gregory F. Holland, Esq. Setliff & Holland, P.C. 4940 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Gail Hart Jeff W. Rosen, Esq. Lisa Ehrich, Esq. Pender & Coward 222 Central Park Ave. Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, Hampton Roads Regional Jail, David Simons, Eugene Taylor, III, Officer Gibbs, Officer Hilliard, Officer Howard, Officer Keister, Officer Powell, MJO Smith, MJO Johnson, Sgt. T. Phillips, Sgt. Tamara Everett, Lt. Roderick Madison, Capt. Felicia Cowan Nicholas F. Simopoulous, Esq. Adam J. Yost, Esq. Office of the Virginia Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Lenna Jo Davis and Kelly N. Boyd David P. Corrigan, Esq.

Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman P.O. Box 70280 Richmond, VA 23255 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Debra K. Ferguson


10

William W. Tunner, Esq. Michael G. Matheson, Esq. William D. Prince, IV, Esq. ThompsonMcMullan, P.C. 100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Officer Dale Barnes, Officer Blakely, Officer Bourne, Derrick Brown, Officer Butcher, MJO Dixon, Sgt. William A. Epperson, Officer Whitaker, Sgt. Steven W. Whitehead, and Lt. Reginald Whitehead

__________/s/______________________

Mark J. Krudys (VSB# 30718) THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC SunTrust Center 919 E. Main Street, Suite 2020 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 774-7950 Fax: (804) 381-4458 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M. Mitchell, Deceased


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division ROXANNE ADAMS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMYCHEAL M. MITCHELL, Deceased, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:16-cv-229 v. NAPHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION TO RESPOND TO, AND PREVENT, FURTHER RETALIATION BY JAIL PERSONNEL

AGAINST INMATE WITNESSES COMES NOW Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M.

Mitchell, Deceased, by counsel, and, for the reasons set forth below, moves this Court for

immediate relief to respond to, and prevent, further retaliation by jail personnel against inmate

witnesses.

INTRODUCTION

As detailed in the accompanying motion, Hampton Roads Regional Jail (“HRRJ”)

inmates who provided information to Jamycheal Mitchell’s family in the above-caption matter,

and who were mentioned by name in the Complaint, along with their observations critical of

certain Jail personnel, have been subject to threats and other abuse by Jail personnel.

Plaintiff seeks immediate relief to respond to, and protect, inmate witnesses in this case

from correctional officer intimidation and abuse.


2

FACTS

The “FACTS” section, and the documents attached thereto, in the accompanying motion

are incorporated herein by reference.

ARGUMENT

This Court Has the Authority to Protect the Inmate Witnesses and Should Exercise that Authority to Ensure a Fair Process

Given the evidence of harassment and intimidation of inmate witnesses in this case, and

the failure of Defendant Simons to adequately address the matter, two legal questions now arise:

(1) does this Court have the authority to intervene, and (2), if so, what should the nature of the

intervention be?

As to the first question, there can be little doubt that the Court has the authority to address

this matter. “Trying improperly to influence a witness is fraud on the court and on the opposing

party.” Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’s, Inc., 517 F.3d 494, 498 (7th Cir. 2008). When such fraud is

injected into a judicial proceeding, a federal court possesses authority to “protect the integrity of

its proceedings.” United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401, 411 (6th Cir. 2007). This answers

Defendant Simons’s suggestion that the undersigned counsel lacks “standing” to address this

issue because the harm is being suffered by the witnesses, not the Plaintiff. But because witness

intimidation “is fraud on the court and on the opposing party,” the Plaintiff here certainly has

standing to protect the integrity of evidence upon which she expects to rely. Ty Inc., 517 F.3d at

498. Indeed, the Plaintiff has already seen important evidence in her case destroyed by Jail

personnel under the supervision of Defendant Simons. Soon after Mitchell died, the HRRJ failed

to preserve – contrary to the undersigned counsel’s explicit request – a videotape of Mitchell’s

final days that may have contained relevant evidence. Sarah Kleiner, “Video footage outside

Jamycheal Mitchell's cell no longer exists,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, Apr. 30, 2016. Given


3

that important evidence under the custody and control of Defendant Simons has purportedly been

lost, and additional evidence in the form of witness testimony is at risk of being compromised,

the Plaintiff may properly seek this Court’s assistance in maintaining the integrity of her case.

Beyond the issue of standing, the Court’s power to intervene at this point can be resolved

by noting three points. First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 authorizes this Court to

provide a party “relief from judgment” where the judgment is the result of “fraud . . .

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Given that the Court has the power to

set aside a judgment procured by fraud or misconduct, it certainly has the power to act upon the

fraud as it is occurring. Second, this Court possesses an “inherent power . . . to vacate its own

judgment upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court.” Chambers v. NASCO,

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Again, if this Court has power to vacate a judgment procured by

fraud, it can hardly be the case that the Court must sit idly by while the fraud is being committed

and only intervene when an unjust judgment has finally been entered. Third, and finally, it is a

federal crime to use or attempt to use “physical force or a threat of physical force against any

person . . . with intent to . . . influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an

official proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 1512. The “official proceeding” need not be a criminal

proceeding; it can be a civil one as well. See, e.g., United States v. LeMoure, 474 F.3d 37, 43

(1st Cir. 2007) (upholding conviction under § 1512 for “tampering with two different witnesses

concerning their depositions in [a] civil case”). Certainly, if there is evidence that a federal

crime is being committed, and the purpose of the crime is to affect the result in a case before a

particular federal judge, that judge has power to intervene in some way to protect the integrity of

his or her proceedings.


4

Given that the Court has the power to intervene at this point, the next question is the

appropriate nature of intervention. On this issue, the Court has great discretion to author an

order it deems appropriate to protect the integrity of its proceedings. Other courts faced with this

difficulty have generally chosen one of two options: a protective order, or sanctions under the

court’s inherent power.

The protective order option is illustrated in Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez,

2011 WL 2937355 (D.N.J. July 19, 2011). In that case, the plaintiff filed an “emergency motion

for a protective order” because it believed that “witnesses who have cooperated with Plaintiff”

were being threatened. Id. at *1. The witnesses were housed in a mental health facility, and, like

the witnesses in the instant case, were “in the exclusive custody and care of the defendants.” Id.

at *5. The defendant opposed the motion for a protective order, arguing that the plaintiff must

instead proceed through a motion for preliminary injunctive relief (which required a showing

that the defendant did not think the plaintiff could make). The court disagreed. In its view,

“[p]rotective orders directed against non-parties . . . are issued pursuant to the ‘inherent equitable

powers of courts of law over their own process, to prevent abuses, oppression, and injustices.’”

Id. at *4 (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 785 (3d Cir.1994)).

Although the court found that it had the power to issue the order, it ultimately decided not

to issue it because the motion was supported only by “irrational fears or conjecture.” Id. at *5.

The opinion is clear, however, that the court has the power to intervene to protect witnesses if

credible evidence is presented. Indeed, in denying the motion, the court was careful to note that

its decision “should not be taken as an endorsement of . . . interference with this case. Any

efforts by agents of Defendants to coerce or intimidate witnesses will be addressed with

severity.” Id.


5

Disability Rights is not a stand-alone case. Other courts have deemed a protective order

an appropriate response for witness tampering. See, e.g., Ben David v. Travisono, 495 F.2d 562,

564 (1st Cir. 1974) (issuing protective order to protect prisoners from “retaliation if they co-

operate in the preparation” of a suit against the prison.); Rissman Hendricks & Oliverio, LLP v.

MIV Therapeutics, Inc., 2011 WL 5025206 (D. Mass. Oct. 20, 2011) (issuing protective order to

protect witnesses from threats for “cooperat[ing]” with the plaintiff’s law firm). Thus, a

protective order is one option available to this Court.

An alternative to the protective order is sanctions. “[T]he district court has discretion ‘to

fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.’” Silvestri v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 593 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

32, 44 (1991)). The court is free to create a sanction that it deems appropriate, although courts

faced with witness tampering have suggested that such “serious misconduct” required a

“commensurately severe sanction, quite possibly dismissal of [the] suit.” Ty Inc. v. Softbelly’s

Inc., 353 F.3d 528, 537 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Weibrecht v. S. Ill. Transfer, Inc., 241 F.3d 875,

884 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that an “attempt[] to influence a witness’s testimony . . . would be a

serious infraction that could have warranted a dismissal with prejudice.”); see also Garvais v.

Reliant Inventory Sols. Inc., 2010 WL 4722260, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2010), report and

recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 347111 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2011) (“An attempt to interfere

with, intimidate, or tamper with a potential witness is sanctionable misconduct.”).

In Ramsey v. Broy, 2010 WL 1251199 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2010), for example, a federal

district court dismissed a suit with prejudice after it was discovered that the plaintiff had

promised a financial reward to a potential witness for lying at trial. The Court noted that,

although “dismissal of a lawsuit is an extreme sanction,” it was the most appropriate sanction in


6

that circumstance. Other sanctions, however, might be appropriate in a given case, such as

monetary sanctions or limitations on the evidence that may be used. Id. at *6.

Of the two options – a protective order or sanctions – the Plaintiff believes a protective

order is the appropriate response at the present time. Most importantly, sanctions are generally

only backward looking. That is, they punish a wrongdoer for misconduct, but do not necessarily

force the wrongdoer to refrain from such misconduct in the future. This case may stretch on for

months, and Plaintiff believes it is thus important that the Court attempt to pro-actively protect

the witnesses rather than rely on the deterrent effect of sanctions.

Additionally, a protective order can be specifically tailored to the unique situations of this

case. Different witnesses have experienced different levels of fear and intimidation, and may

require different levels or types of protection. Possible provisions in a protective order could

include a transfer to a different facility, and/or appointment of a disinterested person to

periodically interview the witnesses for evidence of threats. With the Court’s intervention, it is

likely that an order can be crafted to sufficiently protect the Plaintiff’s interest in maintaining the

integrity of evidence crucial to her case.

Finally, it is important to note that, at present, the Plaintiff has no evidence suggesting

that Defendant Simons has personally attempted to influence a witness in this case. For this and

the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff therefore believes that a protective order is the appropriate

measure at present.

However, concerning a protective order, it is clear that Defendant Simons would be the

proper subject of any protective order regarding this matter because he has the authority, and,

indeed, the legal obligation, to protect those in his custody and control who are subject to

threatening behavior. As noted in the accompanying motion, statements made by Western


7

Tidewater Regional Jail (“WTRJ”) employees to the two inmates now being held there suggest

that HRRJ Authority may be paying the costs of the two inmates at WTRJ. HRRJ may also be

responsible for providing medications for the two inmates – which is apparently not being done.

If Defendant Simons is aware of such threats – and the undersigned counsel has made him aware

on several different occasions now – he is obliged to take action to provide for the safety of the

subject inmates. Because he is failing to take such proper action, and because resolution without

judicial intervention has failed, the Plaintiff now seeks this Court’s assistance.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court intervene on

behalf of inmate witnesses Johnson, Vaughan, Hurst, and Gray, and, to ensure the preservation

of their health, safety and civil rights, ORDER the appointment of an appropriate outside party to

interview the subject inmates, to monitor continually their safety and circumstances, and to

report back to the Court upon the same. Plaintiff also respectfully requests the transfer of Gray

and Johnson to another appropriate facility/facilities. Plaintiff also respectfully requests such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

ROXANNE ADAMS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMYCHEAL M. MITCHELL, DECEASED

By: __________/s/__________________ Counsel Mark J. Krudys (VSB# 30718) THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC SunTrust Center 919 E. Main Street, Suite 2020 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 774-7950 Fax: (804) 381-4458 Email: [email protected] Web: www.krudys.com Counsel for Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M. Mitchell, Deceased


8

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of June 2016, I will electronically file the foregoing

pleading with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification

of the filing to the following:

Ryan Furgurson, Esq. Gregory F. Holland, Esq. Setliff & Holland, P.C. 4940 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Gail Hart Jeff W. Rosen, Esq. Lisa Ehrich, Esq. Pender & Coward 222 Central Park Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority, Hampton Roads Regional Jail, David Simons, Eugene Taylor, III, Officer Gibbs, Officer Hilliard, Officer Howard, Officer Keister, Officer Powell, MJO Smith, MJO Johnson, Sgt. T. Phillips, Sgt. Tamara Everett, Lt. Roderick Madison, Capt. Felicia Cowan Nicholas F. Simopoulous, Esq. Adam J. Yost, Esq. Office of the Virginia Attorney General 202 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Lenna Jo Davis and Kelly N. Boyd David P. Corrigan, Esq.

Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman P.O. Box 70280 Richmond, VA 23255 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Debra K. Ferguson


9

William W. Tunner, Esq. Michael G. Matheson, Esq. William D. Prince, IV, Esq. ThompsonMcMullan, P.C. 100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendants Officer Dale Barnes, Officer Blakely, Officer Bourne, Derrick Brown, Officer Butcher, MJO Dixon, Sgt. William A. Epperson, Officer Whitaker, Sgt. Steven W. Whitehead, and Lt. Reginald Whitehead

_________/s/____________

Mark J. Krudys (VSB# 30718) THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC SunTrust Center 919 E. Main Street, Suite 2020 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 774-7950 Fax: (804) 381-4458 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Roxanne Adams, Administrator of the Estate of Jamycheal M. Mitchell, Deceased


case 2:16-cv-00229-rbs-lrl document 17-1 filed … · united states district court for the eastern...

Documents