COMPLAINT



DOCKET NO. CV 02 0821661 ) SUPERIOR COURT

)

ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR )

OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT )

WISEMAN, )

PLAINTIFF, )

)

vs. )

)

JOHN J. ARMSTRONG; JACK TOKARZ; )

DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN; DR. REGINALD ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HOFFLER; OSCAR MALDONADO; MICHAEL )

A. PACE; KEVIN COWSER; JAMES E. )

REILLY; DONALD J. HEBERT; ROBERT )

G. STACK; JOSE ZAYAS; KEVIN J. )

DANDOLINI; ANGELO P. GIZZI; EDWIN )

MYERS; WILLIAM SMITH; VAUGHN )

WILLIS; BRIAN C. BRADWAY; FRANK )

MIRTO, in their individual and ) HARTFORD AT HARTFORD

official capacities; and )

IRIS PRESCOTT; ANDRE CHOUINARD; )

WILLIAM SCOTT; STEVEN SANELLI; )

JIMMY GUERRERO; JEFFREY HOWES; )

MAURELLIS POWELL; DENNIS CAMP; )

RAYMOND BRODEUR; MOISES PADILLA; )

ANNE MARIE STOREY; ROBERTA C. )

LEDDY; CLO BARSOTTI; GINGER )

BOCHICCHIO; GAIL N. FREDETTE; DR. )

MINGZER TUNG, in their individual )

capacities; and CONNECTICUT )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; STATE OF )

CONNECTICUT; UNIVERSITY OF )

CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER; GARNER )

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) NOVEMBER 11, 2003

AMENDED REVISED COMPLAINT

1. This Complaint concerns the brutal death of a young mentally ill man at the hands of the correctional officers and medical workers charged with his supervision and care.

2. On November 17, 1999, 28-year old Bryant Wiseman died while incarcerated at the Garner Correctional Institution.

3. Bryant was mentally ill, and at the time of his death he had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

4. Notwithstanding Bryant’s mental illness, however, the Department’s doctors, nurses and other medical workers failed and refused to provide adequate and proper medical care, supervision and medication to him, they allowed his mental illness to go untreated and inadequately treated, and they permitted him to decompensate and to become paranoid and aggressive under circumstances that they knew would lead to violent confrontations with other inmates and correctional staff.

5. On November 17, 1999, after several days during which his doctors intentionally withheld required anti-psychotic medication, Bryant’s untreated mental illness caused him to become paranoid and disruptive, and as could and should have been expected, he was subsequently violently subdued and restrained by more than eight correctional officers and other Department staff.

6. Beginning at approximately 12:45 p.m., in a mental health cell at the Garner Correctional institution, the officers and staff piled on top of Bryant, handcuffed him behind his back, put him in leg irons, savagely beat him, asphyxiated him, caused him to vomit, rendered him unconscious and comatose, and ultimately killed him.

7. The guard’s violent and savage assault on Bryant Wiseman and his brutal death at their hands unfortunately is not an isolated incident at the Department of Correction. Seven months before Bryant was killed, another young mentally ill man, Timothy Perry, was killed by guards under similar circumstances while in custody at a facility of the Department of Correction.

8. As with Bryant Wiseman, Timothy Perry’s schizophrenia caused him to become paranoid and aggressive, and he was killed by guards while being violently subdued and restrained in a mental health cell.

9. Following Timothy Perry’s death, however, none of the guards and medical workers responsible for his death told the truth about how he was killed or otherwise notified Department officials of the immediate need for Department-wide training in the treatment and supervision of mentally ill inmates and proper take-down and restraint procedures.

10. Moreover, following Timothy Perry’s death, neither the Commissioner of the Department of Correction nor any other Department official conducted an adequate investigation and review of Timothy’s death or of Department procedures to ensure that proper training was conducted and to avoid further injury and death to mentally ill inmates such as Bryant Wiseman.

11. As a result of the above failings, no adequate training was conducted, no precautionary procedures were instituted, no required monitoring and supervision of correctional staff was contemplated, and, as could and should have been expected and prevented by Department officials, Bryant Wiseman was killed in a nightmarish reenactment of Timothy Perry’s death only a few months earlier.

12. This Complaint seeks redress from the persons and entities responsible for the care and treatment of this State’s mentally ill inmates and for Bryant Wiseman’s anguish, injuries and death.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT WISEMAN, is Bryant Wiseman’s mother. The Fiduciary’s Probate Certificate appointing ELAINE WISEMAN as the Administrator is attached hereto.

14. Defendant JOHN J. ARMSTRONG is, and was at all relevant times, the Commissioner of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. As such, he was responsible for the administration of this State’s correctional system, the care and custody of persons incarcerated by the DEPARTMENT, and the hiring, supervision, training, discipline and control of persons working for the DEPARTMENT. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

15. Defendant JACK TOKARZ is, and was at all relevant times, the Deputy Commissioner of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION in charge of the Programs and Staff Development Division. As such, he was responsible for the administration of this State’s correctional system, the care and custody of persons incarcerated by the DEPARTMENT, and the hiring, supervision, training, discipline and control of persons working for the DEPARTMENT. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

16. Defendant STATE OF CONNECTICUT is a governmental entity, and is the proper party against which suit may be brought pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 4-141, et seq.

17. Defendant CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, acting through its agents, representatives and employees, was responsible for the care, custody and treatment of Bryant Wiseman at all relevant times mentioned herein.

18. Defendant UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER was at all relevant times responsible for providing medical, mental health and psychiatric care, services and supervision to persons in the custody of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including Bryant Wiseman.

19. Defendant GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION is the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION facility where Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated prior to and at the time of his death on November 17, 1999.

20. Defendants MICHAEL A. PACE, KEVIN COWSER, JAMES E. REILLY, DONALD J. HEBERT, ROBERT G. STACK, JOSE ZAYAS, KEVIN J. DANDOLINI, ANGELO P. GIZZI, EDWIN MYERS, WILLIAM SMITH, VAUGHN WILLIS, BRIAN C. BRADWAY, and FRANK MIRTO were correctional officers, supervisors and other staff assigned on November 17, 1999 to the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. The defendants in this paragraph are collectively referred to as the “WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS.” They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

21. Defendants IRIS PRESCOTT, ROBERTA C. LEDDY, CLO BARSOTTI, GINGER BOCHICCHIO, GAIL N. FREDETTE and DR. MINGZER TUNG were medical workers assigned on November 17, 1999 to the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. At relevant times, some or all of these defendants were employed by the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER. They are sued in their individual capacities.

22. Defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN, DR. REGINALD HOFFLER and OSCAR MALDONADO are the doctors and social worker responsible for treating, monitoring and managing Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION prior to his death. At relevant times, some or all of these defendants were employed by the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER. They are sued in their individual and official capacities.

23. Defendants ANDRE CHOUINARD and WILLIAM SCOTT were Lieutenants at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION who, on April 12, 1999, seven months before Bryant Wiseman was killed, were responsible for the death of Timothy Perry, another mentally ill man in the custody of the DEPARTMENT. Defendants STEVEN SANELLI, JIMMY GUERRERO, JEFFREY HOWES, MAURELLIS POWELL, DENNIS CAMP, RAYMOND BRODEUR, and MOISES PADILLA were correctional officers responsible for the death of Timothy Perry. Defendant ANN MARIE STOREY was a nurse employed by the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER who was also responsible for the death of Timothy Perry. The Defendants in this paragraph are collectively referred to as the “PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS.” They are sued in their individual capacities.

FACTS

24. At all times mentioned herein, each individual Defendant was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment.

25. At all times mentioned herein, each defendant was acting under color of state law.

26. Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION for several years before he was killed on November 17, 1999.

27. Bryant was diagnosed by his doctors at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

28. It was well-known to all of Bryant’s doctors, nurses and other medical workers, including his treating psychiatrists defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN and DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, and his assigned social worker defendant OSCAR MALDONADO, that Bryant required adequate and proper anti-psychotic medication in order to control his schizophrenia, to enable him to function properly and to prevent his becoming paranoid, aggressive and disruptive.

29. Notwithstanding this knowledge, DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN, DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, OSCAR MALDONADO and the other doctors and medical workers responsible for Bryant’s well-being failed and refused to prescribe and administer adequate and proper anti-psychotic medications. Specifically, at various times during Bryant’s incarceration at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION up until the time of his death, these defendants: (a) prescribed and administered inadequate amounts of anti-psychotic medication (including Prolixin Decanoate and Prolixin HC1); (b) prescribed and administered no anti-psychotic medications; and (c) failed and refused to medicate Bryant against his will, even though, due to Bryant’s mental illness, he was incapable of caring for his own medical and medication needs.

30. The types of medications prescribed for Bryant, the dosage levels for those medications, and the time periods during which those medications were prescribed were all inadequate to properly treat Bryant’s illness and to control his paranoia and aggression.

31. As a result of these defendants’ failure and refusal to prescribe and administer adequate and proper anti-psychotic medications during the period of Bryant’s incarceration at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and up until the time of his death, his mental illness went substantially untreated, and he suffered frequent episodes of decompensation and resulting paranoia, fear, and aggression

32. Also as a result of substandard medical care, monitoring and supervision, Bryant frequently became non-compliant even with those anti-psychotic medications that were prescribed for him, and, as a result of this non-compliance, he suffered paranoia and other psychotic symptoms, and consequently engaged in assaultive, impulsive and aggressive behavior toward other inmates and staff.

33. Bryant’s need for anti-psychotic medications, his potential for non-compliance, and the resulting risk of aggression, were all well known to his doctors and other medical workers.

34. A November 14, 1996 clinical record entry by defendant DR. JOUGHIN, for example, states that “The large issue is [Bryant’s] inclination to be off medication, and problems around non-compliance → decompensation, paranoia and violence towards others.”

35. Similarly, a November 26, 1996 clinical entry by DR. JOUGHIN states that “the patient’s need for medication is clear – in terms of his paranoia and related hostility when off medications....”

36. A clinical record entry by defendant social worker MALDONADO on November 26, 1996 similarly states ”This inmate has a history of poor compliance with medications. In the past he has decompensated rapidly whenever he stops taking his medications. He has the potential to become assaultive. Therefore his medication intake needs to be monitored regularly.”

37. During the period of his incarceration at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Bryant suffered repeated episodes of becoming noncompliant with his psychotropic medications, of decompensating and becoming paranoid and violent as a result, of engaging in aggressive behavior, of being restrained by correctional staff, and of having his medications subsequently monitored or even administered against his will.

38. These repeated episodes of noncompliance, aggression, restraint, and subsequent medication were well-known to Bryant’s treating psychiatrists and to the other doctors, nurses and medical staff who had responsibility for treating and managing Bryant’s mental illness, including defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, MALDONADO and PRESCOTT.

39. For example, in November 1996, after having refused his medications for several days, Bryant became paranoid and he assaulted another inmate. Correctional officers restrained him, and his treating psychiatrist, DR. JOUGHIN, subsequently ordered that Bryant be given anti-psychotic medication against his will if he continued to refuse voluntary medication. A Supervisory Review of the incident determined that “Wiseman had not been taking his medications regularly, and this could have triggered his violent outbursts.”

40. For another example, in January 1998, Bryant was found fighting in his cell and was restrained by correctional staff. For days prior to the incident, he had been non-compliant with his psychotropic medication. On January 21, 1998, medical staff at the DEPARTMENT ordered that Bryant be forcibly medicated due to his “history of assaultive behavior when not on medication.”

41. For another example, in October 1999, just weeks before his death, Bryant again refused to take his anti-psychotic medications and he became gravely disabled and acutely agitated as a result. Bryant’s treating psychiatrist at the time, DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, confined Bryant to his cell and noted that Bryant has a history of “extreme agitation” and that he is a “danger to self or others when in psychotic state.”

42. Notwithstanding Bryant’s profound and well-documented need for anti-psychotic medication, his well-documented potential for rapid decompensation, paranoia and aggression in the absence of such medication, and the fact that any such aggressive behavior would lead inevitably to Bryant being forcibly subdued and restrained by one or more correctional officers and other custodial staff, incredibly, on November 1, 1999, just days before Bryant’s death, defendant DR. HOFFLER ordered that Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication be “discontinue[d] if [patient] remains noncompliant.”

43. Following DR. HOFFLER’s astounding order, Bryant, as he had on numerous prior occasions, became non-compliant with his anti-psychotic medication, and he refused to take the required dosages numerous times between November 1 and November 15. Pursuant to DR. HOFFLER’s order, Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication was then discontinued on November 15, 1999.

44. There was no valid medical reason for discontinuing Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication; DR. HOFFLER’s order was a grave and unforgivable breach of the standard of care.

45. As a result of the discontinuance of his medication, and as a result of the failure of his doctors, nurses and other medical workers to properly monitor and evaluate his condition, Bryant rapidly decompensated and became aggressive. His propensity for rapid decompensation and immediate aggression was well-documented in the clinical record, and it should have been anticipated and prevented by Bryant’s doctors and nurses.

46. On November 16, 1999, DR. HOFFLER examined Bryant and wrote in the clinical record that Bryant had been exhibiting “bizarre behavior” for the past two days and was “possibly decompensating.”

47. HOFFLER ordered the nurse to “refer inmate to psychiatrist tomorrow a.m.,” but, incredibly, HOFFLER and the other medical workers responsible for Bryant’s care failed and refused to schedule an immediate psychiatric consultation for Bryant, and they failed to do anything to ensure that Bryant was promptly given anti-psychotic medication, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

48. In the morning of November 17, 1999, Bryant continued to show signs of psychosis and paranoia, and at approximately 9:40 a.m., Correctional Officer James Santopietro told the DEPARTMENT’s mental health staff that Bryant was “acting bizarre.” However, notwithstanding all of the evidence to the contrary, including the specific written medical evaluations described above, mental health staff responded that Bryant “was fine.”

49. As could and should have been expected, several hours later on November 17, 1999, two days after DR. HOFFLER inexplicably and unforgivably discontinued Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication, Bryant followed the same pattern of rapid decompensation, paranoia and aggression that he had followed numerous times in the past, he got into an altercation with a fellow inmate, and he was forcibly restrained and subdued by correctional staff.

50. This time, however, due to a profound lack of training in how to properly manage mentally ill inmates, and due to the officers’ violent, unrestrained and excessive use of force against Bryant, something went terribly wrong.

51. At approximately 12:45 p.m., in Cell 520 on the Inpatient Medical (IPM) Unit of the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, more than eight correctional officers and other custodial staff (the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS): forced Bryant into a face-down “hog tie” position with his feet up on the bed, his torso down on the floor, and his hands shackled behind his back; placed his legs in leg irons; brutally and repeatedly beat him on the backs of his legs, his stomach, his shins and other parts of his body; attacked and used extreme and excessive force against him; utterly compromised his respiratory system and asphyxiated him; caused him to vomit and to bleed from his mouth; rendered him unconscious and comatose; and ultimately killed him.

52. Specifically, in the course of subduing and restraining Bryant, the defendants perpetrated the following acts, among other things:

a. defendant Correctional Officer MICHAEL A. PACE forcibly pressed Bryant’s head and shoulders against the cell floor;

b. defendant Lt. KEVIN D. COWSER held Bryant’s upper torso and left arm, applied handcuffs to Bryant’s wrists, and forcibly pinned Bryant’s upper torso to the floor by pressing his knee on Bryant’s shoulder;

c. defendant Correctional Officer JAMES E. REILLY held Bryant’s right arm and wrist while Lt. COWSER applied hand cuffs, and he held Bryant’s upper body to the cell floor by pressing on Bryant’s arms and by pressing his knee on Bryant’s back;

d. defendant correctional counselor DONALD J. HEBERT, who was acting CTO for the IPM Unit, savagely and repeatedly beat Bryant with hammer-type strikes to his body while the other defendants held Bryant down;

e. defendant Lt. ROBERT G. STACK held Bryant’s right leg and applied leg irons to both legs;

f. defendant Correctional Officer JOSE ZAYAS grabbed Bryant’s legs by the ankles, held his left foot, and, after the leg irons were applied, continued to hold on to the leg iron chain;

g. defendant Correctional Officer KEVIN J. DANDOLINI grabbed Bryant’s right leg and ankle, and beat Bryant’s left leg with a closed fist; and

h. defendant Correctional Officer ANGELO P. GIZZI knelt on the back of Bryant’s legs and held Bryant’s ankles.

53. Defendants Captain EDWIN MYERS, Correctional Officer WILLIAM SMITH, Correctional Officer VAUGHN WILLIS, Correctional Treatment Officer BRIAN C. BRADWAY and Correctional Training Officer FRANK MIRTO also participated in, witnessed, and failed and refused to stop the assault on Bryant.

54. After savagely beating Bryant, and after placing him in hand cuffs and leg irons, the defendants continued for several minutes to hold him in the face-down hog tie position, with his feet up on the bed and his face pressed against the floor and with the weight of several correctional officers on him, while they waited for cutting shears to cut Bryant’s clothes from his body so that they could perform a strip search.

55. At this point, Bryant began to vomit, and the defendants realized that he was unconscious and comatose and had stopped breathing.

56. Following the officer’s attack, after Bryant had been rendered unconscious and comatose, and after he had vomited and stopped breathing, the officers finally called medical staff for assistance.

57. Defendants Correctional Hospital Nurse Supervisor ROBERTA C. LEDDY, Correctional Hospital Nurse IRIS R. PRESCOTT, Nurse CLO BARSOTTI, Correctional Hospital Nurse GINGER BOCHICCHIO, Nurse GAIL N. FREDETTE, and Dr. MINGZER TUNG responded to the call; however, these defendants rendered profoundly substandard medical care to Bryant.

58. These defendants failed to obtain and to use adequate and properly functioning medical equipment, they failed to properly check Bryant’s vital signs, and they failed to provide proper, standard and required CPR and other emergency medical treatment and care.

59. At this time, Bryant had a weak radial pulse and was unresponsive to stimuli, vomitus had clogged his airway, his pupils were dilated, and he had no pulse and no respiration.

60. At approximately 1:16 p.m., Bryant was transported by ambulance to the emergency department at Danbury Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 2:01 p.m.

61. Defendant WILLIAM SMITH recorded on videotape some of the events, acts and omissions alleged in the preceding paragraphs. That portion of the videotape that has been produced to plaintiff’s counsel by the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION is Exhibit A to this Complaint, and the events, acts, omissions and admissions recorded on that tape are incorporated into this Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

62. Following Bryant’s death, officials of the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, determined that all of the defendants’ conduct was perfectly proper and fully consistent with the DEPARTMENT’s policies and procedures concerning the restraint of mentally ill and aggressive inmates.

63. Not one of the defendants was ever punished or disciplined for his or her responsibility for Bryant’s injuries and death.

64. Seven months before Bryant’s death, on April 12, 1999, Timothy Perry, another young mentally ill man, was similarly brutally killed while in the custody of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

65. Like Bryant Wiseman, Mr. Perry had a history of mental illness and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia.

66. Like Bryant Wiseman and many other seriously mentally ill persons, Mr. Perry’s illness caused him to engage in impulsive and aggressive behavior.

67. On April 12, 1999 at the Hartford Correctional Center, Timothy succumbed to his mental illness, and became severely agitated and anxious.

68. At approximately 7:45 p.m., while defendants Nurse STOREY and Correctional Officer POWELL stood by and watched, defendant Correctional Officer HOWES pushed Timothy backwards, and defendant Correctional Officers SANELLI, GUERRERO and CAMP descended upon Timothy and restrained him with the use of force.

69. At approximately 8:00 p.m., defendant POWELL initiated a “code orange,” seeking assistance from other correctional officers. Defendant Correctional Officer BRODEUR responded to the “code orange,” and he handcuffed Timothy behind his back.

70. Defendants Correctional Officer PADILLA and Lieutenant CHOUINARD also responded to the “code orange” and, along with and assisted by other PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, began restraining, subduing and using excessive force against Timothy, even after Timothy was face down on the floor and was handcuffed behind his back.

71. The CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS carried Timothy face down to South Block Cell 10, put him face down on the mattress, shackled him with leg irons, continued to use excessive force against him, and, like Bryant Wiseman, asphyxiated him.

72. The take-down and restraint procedures utilized, and the use of force perpetrated, by the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS were essentially identical to the take-down and restraint procedures and the use of force utilized and perpetrated by the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS seven months later.

73. At or about the time that the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS carried Timothy to Cell 10 and/or held Timothy in Cell 10, defendant Nurse STOREY spoke to a DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION staff psychiatrist who ordered that Timothy be tied down by his hands and feet.

74. The defendants carried Timothy face down and handcuffed from Cell 10 to Cell 24, a 4-point restraint cell.

75. The Defendants’ use of excessive force against Timothy rendered Timothy unconscious, comatose, dying or dead at or near the time that he was in Cell 10 and at and after the time that the Defendants moved him to Cell 24.

76. In Cell 24, the Defendants put Timothy face down on the bed, and removed his handcuffs, leg irons and clothes.

77. Defendant Lieutenant CHOUINARD was the scene supervisor for the “code orange” and was responsible for supervising the other PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS throughout the entire incident.

78. Defendant Lieutenant WILLIAM SCOTT assisted in restraining Timothy and in the use of excessive force against him. Defendant SCOTT also observed the other Defendants’ excessive force against Timothy, and he did nothing to stop it.

79. In Cell 24, despite the fact that Timothy did not move or resist in any way, and despite the fact that he was obviously unconscious, comatose, dying or dead, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS continued to restrain him, and to use excessive force against him.

80. The PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS then turned Timothy onto his back, they cut and tore off the rest of his clothing, and they tied him down by his wrists and ankles.

81. At approximately 8:30 p.m., the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS left Timothy strapped down and alone in the 4-point restraint cell.

82. Defendant POWELL recorded on videotape some of the events, acts and omissions alleged in the preceding paragraphs. That portion of the videotape that was previously produced by the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION is Exhibit B to this Complaint, and the events, acts, omissions and admissions recorded on that tape are incorporated into this Complaint as if fully alleged herein.

83. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 12, about two hours after the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS left Timothy strapped down and alone in the 4-point restraint cell, another member of the HARTFORD CORRECTIONAL CENTER medical staff, Nurse Yvonne Smith, noticed through the cell window that Timothy’s feet were discolored and that he was in the exact same position that he had been in two hours earlier.

84. Nurse Smith had Timothy’s cell door opened, and she discovered that Timothy had no pulse, that he was cold, stiff and not breathing, and that he had been dead for some time.

85. Timothy’s body was transported by ambulance to Hartford Hospital, where he was officially pronounced dead.

86. Following the death of Timothy Perry, not one of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS was appropriately punished or disciplined. Four months later, defendant STOREY was actually offered a promotion.

87. Following Timothy Perry’s death, his estate sued defendant Commissioner ARMSTRONG, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS and others responsible for his death. The defendants agreed to settle that lawsuit by paying to Mr. Perry’s estate $2.9 million.

88. Notwithstanding the settlement of the case, and notwithstanding all of the evidence showing that the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS were responsible for killing Timothy Perry, nearly all of those defendants continue to be employed by the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and continue to hold positions of substantial authority in the DEPARTMENT.

89. Following Timothy Perry’s death, throughout the course of (a) an internal investigation conducted by the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, (b) an investigation conducted by the Connecticut State Police, and (c) the subsequent lawsuit brought by Mr. Perry’s estate, not one of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told the truth about how Mr. Perry was killed; rather, they hid the truth and deliberately lied in order to avoid blame and punishment for his death.

90. Following Timothy Perry’s death, not one of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told the truth or notified DEPARTMENT officials about their profound lack of skill, experience, training and supervision in the handling of mentally ill and aggressive inmates and in the use of force against, and the restraint of, such inmates.

91. Following Timothy Perry’s death, not one of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told the truth or notified DEPARTMENT officials about the urgent need for Department-wide training for all custodial staff in the proper handling of mentally ill and aggressive inmates and in the use of force against such inmates.

92. At no point following Mr. Perry’s death did defendant Commissioner ARMSTRONG, defendant Deputy Commissioner TOKARZ, or any other DEPARTMENT official institute meaningful, adequate and effective Department-wide training for custodial staff in the proper handling of mentally ill and aggressive inmates and in the use of force against such inmates, even though, following Mr. Perry’s death, it was known to them, and should have been known to them, that such training was urgently required.

93. The above failures of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, and of defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, directly and proximately caused the death of Bryant Wiseman.

94. The individually named defendants in this Complaint each acted with reckless or callous indifference to Bryant Wiseman’s dignity as a human being and to his constitutional and statutory rights.

95. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendants, Bryant Wiseman suffered extreme distress, anguish, pain and death.

FIRST COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference -- Failure to Provide Constitutionally Adequate Medical Care -- against defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN, DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, OSCAR MALDONADO, IRIS PRESCOTT, ROBERTA C. LEDDY, CLO BARSOTTI, GINGER BOCHICCHIO, GAIL N. FREDETTE, DR. MINGZER TUNG, and the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. By failing to provide Bryant Wiseman with constitutionally adequate medical care, and by failing to summon such care, the defendants knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to Bryant’s health and safety and knowingly subjected him to pain, physical and mental injury, and death, thereby violating Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

SECOND COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference -- Failure to Provide Constitutionally Adequate Medical Care -- Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. The defendants were personally involved in and responsible for the deliberate indifference to Bryant Wiseman’s serious medical needs in that:

a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the continuance of a policy and custom, under which inmates would be deprived of adequate medical care; and

b. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts described herein.

3. The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.

4. By failing to provide Bryant Wiseman with constitutionally adequate medical care, the defendants knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to Bryant’s health and safety and knowingly subjected him to pain, physical and mental injury, and death, thereby violating Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutions.

THIRD COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect --against the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. Each of the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS knew that the other WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were using excessive force against Bryant and/or were failing to summon or provide obvious and urgently needed medical attention for him.

3. Each defendant could have taken action to stop the use of excessive force, to summon or provide medical care, and to prevent injury and death to Bryant, but refused and failed to do so.

4. Each defendant failed to protect Bryant from the use of excessive force and the deliberate failure to provide medical care in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

FOURTH COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect -- against the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. At no point after Timothy Perry’s death on April 12, 1999, and up until Bryant Wiseman’s death seven months later, did any of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS tell the full truth about how Timothy Perry was killed.

3. In fact, in multiple sworn statements made by the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS following Mr. Perry’s death, the defendants lied to investigators about their acts, omissions and responsibility, about their failure to properly restrain Mr. Perry, about their failure to summon urgently needed medical care for him and about other relevant facts.

4. By their intentional failure and refusal to honestly report the facts concerning their responsibility for Mr. Perry’s death, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS hid information from DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS officials and profoundly hindered and interfered with those officials’ ability to prevent similar injuries and deaths in the future, including the death of Bryant Wiseman.

5. For example, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS intentionally failed and refused to put DEPARTMENT officials on notice of serious deficiencies in the DEPARTMENTS’ training of correctional officers to deal with mentally ill inmates and to safely restrain inmates.

6. Each of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS knew: (a) that other correctional officers and medical workers in the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION had been improperly and inadequately trained to safely and properly restrain inmates, especially mentally ill inmates; (b) that other mentally ill inmates, such as Bryant Wiseman, were in the custody of the DEPARTMENT; (c) that correctional employees are frequently called upon to deal with and restrain mentally ill inmates in situations that require safe and proper techniques and that pose a risk of harm to the inmates; and (d) that the lack of training would inevitably lead to the injury and death of other inmates and mentally ill inmates such as Bryant Wiseman.

7. The defendants’ failure and refusal to tell the truth about their responsibility for Mr. Perry’s death, and to otherwise put DEPARTMENT officials on notice of the urgent need to provide proper and adequate training to correctional employees concerning how to safely restrain inmates and how to otherwise safely and properly deal with mentally ill inmates, proximately caused Bryant Wiseman’s injuries and death and violated his Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments rights under the United States Constitution.

FIFTH COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect -- Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. Following Timothy Perry’s death, and at other times before Bryant Wiseman was killed, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ were on actual and constructive notice that inmates, especially mentally ill inmates such as Bryant Wiseman, were at a profound risk of harm and death at the hands of correctional employees who were inadequately and improperly trained to manage, supervise and restrain such inmates.

3. Defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ were personally involved in and responsible for the failure to protect Bryant Wiseman in that:

a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the continuance of a policy and custom, under which correctional officers and other persons employed at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted and/or encouraged to look the other way and to remain silent when excessive force is used against inmates in the correctional system;

b. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the continuance of a policy and custom, under which correctional officers and other persons employed at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted and/or encouraged to look the other way and to remain silent when it becomes clear that employees have been inadequately or improperly trained to deal with mentally ill and other inmates and when the lack of training increases the risk of harm to inmates in the correctional system; and

c. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts described herein.

4. The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.

5. The defendants failed to protect Bryant in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

SIXTH COUNT

(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Train -- Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. Following the death of Timothy Perry, and at other times before Bryant Wiseman’s death, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ had actual and constructive knowledge of the facts that (a) DEPARTMENT employees were improperly and inadequately trained to deal with mentally ill inmates, (b) DEPARTMENT employees were improperly and inadequately trained to safely and properly restrain mentally ill and other inmates, and (c) that the failure to train had resulted in death and injury to one or more inmates in the correctional system, including Timothy Perry.

3. Following the death of Timothy Perry, and at other times before the Bryant Wiseman’s death, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ knew to a moral certainty that DEPARTMENT employees would confront and continue to confront situations that called for the restraint of mentally ill and other inmates and that posed a risk of harm to the inmates if the employees failed to properly and safely conduct the restraint.

4. Following the death of Timothy Perry, and notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ made no meaningful changes to the DEPARTMENT’s training protocols concerning how to properly deal with mentally ill inmates or how to effectuate a proper and safe inmate restraint, and they ordered no meaningful additional or different training for the DEPARTMENT’s correctional officers, including the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, concerning these matters.

5. The defendants failed to require meaningful additional or different training in these matters even though, following Timothy Perry’s death and at other times before Bryant Wiseman was killed, the need for such training was so obvious that the inadequacy was very likely to result in injury and death to other mentally ill inmates, including Bryant Wiseman.

6. The defendants were personally involved in and responsible for the failure to train in that:

a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the continuance of a policy and custom, under which correctional officers and other persons employed at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are inadequately and improperly trained to deal with mentally ill and other inmates and to safely restrain inmates; and

b. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts described herein.

7. The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.

8. The defendants’ failure to protect Bryant Wiseman and their failure to properly and adequately train correctional employees, or to ensure such training, violated Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

SEVENTH COUNT

(Excessive Force, against the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. The force used by the defendants against Bryant Wiseman on November 17, 1999 was unreasonable and excessive in violation of Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

EIGHTH COUNT

(Excessive Force, Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. The defendants were personally involved in and responsible for the excessive force used against Bryant Wiseman in that:

a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the continuance of a policy and custom, under which correctional officers and other employees of the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted and/or encouraged to use excessive force against inmates; and

b. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and training subordinates who participated in the use of excessive force against Bryant Wiseman.

3. The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.

4. By their acts and failures to act, the defendants subjected Bryant Wiseman to pain, physical and mental injury, and death in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

NINTH COUNT

(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542 -- failure to provide humane and dignified treatment -- against THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, THE GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and MALDONADO, and the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, in their individual and official capacities)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a “Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).

3. The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).

4. During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the defendants failed to provide humane and dignified treatment to him, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542.

5. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was improperly and inadequately treated, he was deprived of the ability to live a productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation, pain and anguish, and he was killed.

6. This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-550.

TENTH COUNT

(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542 -- failure to provide a specialized treatment plan -- against THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, THE GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, and defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and MALDONADO, in their individual and official capacities)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a “Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).

3. The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).

4. During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the defendants failed to treat and monitor him in accordance with a specialized treatment plan suited to his disorders and to his psychiatric circumstances, including treatment for his schizophrenia and his related impulsive and aggressive behavior, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542.

5. As a direct and proximate consequence of the defendants’ acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was improperly and inadequately treated, he was deprived of the ability to live a productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation, pain and anguish, and he was killed.

6. This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-550.

ELEVENTH COUNT

(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-545 -- failure to conduct psychiatric examinations –- THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, THE GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, and defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and MALDONADO, in their individual and official capacities)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a “Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).

3. The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).

4. During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the Defendants failed to conduct, or to ensure Bryant’s receipt of, proper psychiatric examinations, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-545.

5. As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was inadequately and improperly treated, he was deprived of the ability to live a productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation, pain and anguish, and he was killed.

6. This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-550.

TWELFTH COUNT

(Negligence/Medical Malpractice against the STATE OF CONNECTICUT)

1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.

2. During the time that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, and until his death on November 17, 1999, the STATE OF CONNECTICUT and its employees, servants and agents, undertook his care, treatment, monitoring and supervision.

3. While under the care of the STATE’s employees, servants and agents, Bryant Wiseman suffered severe, serious, painful and permanent injuries and death.

4. The injuries and death suffered by Bryant Wiseman were caused by the failure of the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and its employees, servants and agents, to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances then and there present, in that they:

a. failed to adequately and properly care for, treat, monitor and supervise Bryant Wiseman;

b. failed to prescribe proper types and adequate amounts of psychotropic and other medications to Bryant Wiseman;

c. failed to anticipate, plan for, and prevent Bryant’s mental decompensation;

d. failed to properly check vital signs and failed to provide proper, standard and required CPR and other emergency medical care on November 17, 1999;

e. failed to ensure that the emergency medical equipment available for use at the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION on November 17, 1999 was adequate and in proper working order;

f. failed to provide physicians, nurses, counselors and other medical and mental health workers with the required skill, training and experience to care for Bryant Wiseman;

g. failed to provide adequate and proper monitoring, supervision and training of the physicians, nurses, counselors and other medical and mental health workers who had responsibility for Bryant Wiseman at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; and

h. failed to have available physicians, nurses, counselors and other medical and mental health workers who are competent and knowledgeable in the care and treatment of mentally ill persons and in the care and treatment of persons suffering emergency medical complications such as those suffered by Bryant Wiseman on November 17, 1999.

5. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and its employees, servants and agents, Bryant Wiseman suffered the following severe, serious, painful and permanent injuries:

a. His mental illness, including schizophrenia, went untreated and improperly treated, and was allowed to become more severe and debilitating;

b. He was repeatedly subjected to extreme emotional and psychological distress;

c. He was repeatedly allowed to mentally decompensate and to suffer all of the complications associated with his decompensation, including uncontrollable paranoia, fear, stress, and anxiety;

d. He was repeatedly allowed to become assaultive, and to engage in behavior that could and did lead to his physical injury at the hands of other inmates and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION staff; and

e. He died.

6. As a result of all of these injuries and his death, Bryant Wiseman has been permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life’s activities and his earning power has been permanently erased.

7. On August 29, 2002, the Connecticut Claims Commissioner granted plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN and the ESTATE OF BRYANT WISEMAN permission to sue the State of Connecticut for medical malpractice. A copy of the Commissioner’s August 29, 2002 Finding and Order, and a copy of the claimants’ Certificate of Good Faith, submitted pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a, are attached hereto.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT WISEMAN, prays for relief as follows:

1. For compensatory damages according to proof;

2. For punitive damages;

3. For costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and

4. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 11, 2003

THE PLAINTIFF

By___________________________

Antonio Ponvert III, Esq.

Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.

350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Tele: (203) 336-4421

Juris No. 32250

DOCKET NO. CV 02 0821661 ) SUPERIOR COURT

)

ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR )

OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT )

WISEMAN, )

PLAINTIFF, )

)

vs. )

)

JOHN J. ARMSTRONG; JACK TOKARZ; )

DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN; DR. REGINALD ) JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

HOFFLER; OSCAR MALDONADO; MICHAEL )

A. PACE; KEVIN COWSER; JAMES E. )

REILLY; DONALD J. HEBERT; ROBERT )

G. STACK; JOSE ZAYAS; KEVIN J. )

DANDOLINI; ANGELO P. GIZZI; EDWIN )

MYERS; WILLIAM SMITH; VAUGHN )

WILLIS; BRIAN C. BRADWAY; FRANK )

MIRTO, in their individual and ) HARTFORD AT HARTFORD

official capacities; and )

IRIS PRESCOTT; ANDRE CHOUINARD; )

WILLIAM SCOTT; STEVEN SANELLI; )

JIMMY GUERRERO; JEFFREY HOWES; )

MAURELLIS POWELL; DENNIS CAMP; )

RAYMOND BRODEUR; MOISES PADILLA; )

ANNE MARIE STOREY; ROBERTA C. )

LEDDY; CLO BARSOTTI; GINGER )

BOCHICCHIO; GAIL N. FREDETTE; DR. )

MINGZER TUNG, in their individual )

capacities; and CONNECTICUT )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; STATE OF )

CONNECTICUT; UNIVERSITY OF )

CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER; GARNER )

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, )

)

DEFENDANTS. ) NOVEMBER 11, 2003

AD DAMNUM

This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Plaintiff demands money damages in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS ($15,000.00) excluding attorneys fees, interest and costs.

THE PLAINTIFF

By___________________________

Antonio Ponvert III, Esq.

Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.

350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Tele: (203) 336-4421

Juris No. 32250

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid, on this day of November 2003, to all counsel of record:

Ann Lynch

Terrence O’Neill

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

_____________________________

Antonio Ponvert III

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download