FILED IN MY OFFICE

DISTRICT COURT CLERK

2/16/2015 3:25:41 PM
STEPHEN T. PACHECO
Jorge Montes

IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF SANTA FE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
C.G., P.P., M.T., S.W.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

D-101-CV-2015-00442
No. CIV _____________________

JURY REQUESTED

DOCTOR MARK WALDEN; JOHN/ JANE DOEs (medical staff)

in their individual and official capacities;
JOHN/JANE DOEs (corrections officers);
in their individual and official capacities,
THE GEO GROUP, INC.; and CORIZON, INC.
(Corizon Healthcare Services CHS).
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
WARDEN TIMOTHY B. HATCH, in his individual and
official capacity, and WARDEN ERASMO BRAVO, in
his individual and official capacity (NMCD),
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR
NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE,
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiffs bring this Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for damages resulting
from the Deprivation of Civil Rights inflicted upon them by Defendants Doctor Mark
Walden, John/Jane Does (Medical staff), John/Jane Does (corrections officers), The Geo
Group, Inc., and Corizon, Inc., for violations arising under the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, as well as state law claims under both the Constitution of
New Mexico and state law. The court has jurisdiction of this action (28 U.S.C. Sec.
1343) and of the parties.

Venue is proper in this judicial district as the incidents

complained of occurred primarily in this district. Plaintiff alleges as follows:

PARTIES
1.

At all times material hereto, Defendant Dr. Mark Walden (hereinafter Walden),

was a resident of New Mexico and was employed by Defendant Corizon to provide
medical care at Guadalupe County Correctional Facility (hereinafter GCCF) and
Northeastern New Mexico Detention Facility, (hereinafter NENMDF), institutions as
defined by 42 U.S.C. 1997(1). At all times material, Defendant Walden was acting
within the scope of his employment.
2.

At all times material, Dr. Mark Walden was not covered under the New Mexico

Malpractice Act. The Plaintiffs have done everything necessary to comply with the New
Mexico Malpractice Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA).
3.

Defendants John/Jane Does (medical staff and corrections officers) were residents

of New Mexico at all times relevant herein.

4.

Upon information and belief, both Defendants John/Jane Does medical staff and

corrections officers knew, had a reason to know, or had a duty to know that Dr. Mark
Walden was sexually assaulting numerous prisoners, as more particularly described
herein.
5.

Defendant Corizon, Inc., is a privately held foreign corporation, and was the

principal medical provider with whom New Mexico Corrections Department contracts to
provide medical services to inmates.
6.

At all times pertinent, Defendant Corizon Healthcare Services Inc., was a licensed

New Mexico healthcare facility in Guadalupe County, New Mexico, with registered
agent at CT Corporation System, 123 East Marcy, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501.

7.

Upon best information and belief Corizon, Inc. was not covered by the Medical

Malpractice Act at any time pertinent hereto and its liability for damages is therefore not
capped by the Act.
8.

Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc., is a privately held Missouri

Corporation, and is the principal medical provider with whom New Mexico Corrections
Department contracts to provide medical services to inmates. CMS contracts additionally
with Correctional Healthcare Management (CHM), a Colorado for-profit, which is a
division or Correctional Healthcare Companies.
9.

Defendant The Geo Group, Inc., (hereinafter GEO), is/was a registered foreign

corporation transacting business in New Mexico.

10.

At all times material, Defendant GEO owned and operated GCCF and NENMCF

pursuant to contract with the New Mexico Corrections Department, and enjoyed the
enormous profits generated thereby, as shipped to privately held owners outside New
Mexico.
11.

In order to increase its profits from treating the medical needs of prisoners,

Defendants Corizon and CMS have a national policy and practice of cutting costs through
hiring medical staff without medical malpractice insurance, failing to provide adequate
attention and oversight to medical doctors with whom it contracted, and ignoring
legitimate treatment of the physical medical needs of inmates, such as Plaintiffs herein.
12.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs C.G. and S.W. were inmates housed at

NENMDF between April of 2012 and July of 2013.

13.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs P.P. and M.T. and were inmates housed at

GCCF in Santa Rosa, between November 2011 and March of 2012, up to the current
period.
14.

Plaintiffs complied with, or attempted to comply with, all of the requirements of

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) before filing this Complaint, through the filing
of numerous grievances in 2013 and 2014.
15.

Upon information and belief, prisoners are not adequately informed or instructed

concerning their rights under the PLRA and the grievance process.
16.

At all times material herein, Plaintiffs were and still are under the direct and

continuous control, custody, and supervision of Defendants.

17.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for physical and mental injuries sustained as the

result of the sexual assaults committed by Dr. Walden, inadequate medical treatment they
received, and the parent corporations negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the
medical staff with whom they contract.
18.

The acts complained of occurred in the State of New Mexico. Plaintiffs causes

of action arose in Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County, New Mexico, and Clayton, Union
County, New Mexico.
19.

Defendant Erasmo Bravo (hereinafter "Bravo") was at times material times the

Warden of the GCCF in Santa Rosa, New Mexico, and is sued in his individual and
official capacities.
20.

Defendant Hatch was at all material times the Warden of the NENMDF, and

is sued in his individual and official capacities.

21.

Plaintiffs claims for damages arise under the United States Constitution and the

laws of the State of New Mexico, including the NM Medical Malpractice Act.
22.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

23.

Venue is proper in this district.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

24.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint.

25.

Between mid to late 2012, Plaintiff S.W. sought to care of Dr. Walden for

stomach pain and difficulty urinating.

26.

Plaintiff S.W. was fondled and digitally penetrated by Dr. Walden on three

separate occasions.
27.

Upon questioning by Plaintiff S.W., Dr. Walden claimed he was milking

Plaintiffs prostrate and other medically nonsensical responses.

28.

Dr. Walden utilized a screen to prevent other members of the medical and prison

staff from easily observing the conduct of his examinations.

29.

Plaintiff S.W. also suffered from head injuries and otherwise has difficulty

remembering exact dates of the sexual assaults.

30.

Upon Plaintiff S.W. lodging both formal and informal grievances, Plaintiff S.W.

alleges he was denied access to his full medical records by medical and prison staff.
31.

Plaintiff S.W. alleges he was further retaliated against by being locked up in the

segregation unit (SEG) for 6 months.

32.

In February and March of 2012, Plaintiff M.T. consulted Dr. Walden, suffering

from a toenail fungus.

33.

Dr. Walden sexually assault Plaintiff M.T. on numerous occasions between

September of 2010 and his final visit on or about March of 2012.

34.

In July of 2011, Defendant Walden inappropriately fondled M.T.s genitals

without the proper use of examination gloves, calling it a hemorrhoid examination.

35.

Defendant Walden would digitally penetrate M.T., utilizing his blinds to conceal

his wrongdoing, and claiming he was conducting a prostate check.

36.

Plaintiff M.T. claims he was given a medically unnecessary chronic treatment

plan, and Dr. Walden wrote serious medical condition in his medical records to justify
seeing Plaintiff M.T. on numerous occasions.
37.

On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff M.T. filed a grievance which was referred it to legal

department and accepted, for investigation; however, Plaintiff M.T. has not received
any information on the results of his grievance, nor reparation for the sexual assaults
endured.
38.

Plaintiff P.P. filed a similar DOH grievance on May 3, 2014, without any results

or information concerning his complaint.

39.

Plaintiff P.P. was seen on or about November 2011 for his annual health medical.

40.

Dr. Mark Walden felt P.P.s throat and chest and asked him to breathe deep.

41.

Plaintiffs P.P.s genitalia were inappropriately fondled under the pretense of a

hernia exam, all without gloves.

42.

Defendant Dr. Walden proceeded forward with a medically unnecessary prostate

exam, digitally penetrating Plaintiffs rectum.

43.

Plaintiff P.P. alleges the delay in filing a lawsuit past the three year statute of

limitations found in NMSA 41-5-13 comes from embarrassment and shock he felt from
the sexual assault, and thinking he was alone in complaining of the experience.
44.

Plaintiff P.P. further states he feared retaliation from other corrections officers

(including the loss of preferential status), medical personnel, and other inmates, should
he speak out concerning the sexual assaults (research literature suggests prison inmates
are more likely to receive assaults from other inmates, should they make assaults they
have endured, without reparation, publicly known).
45.

Under principles of equitable estoppel, New Mexico law recognizes the doctrine

of fraudulent concealment in medical malpractice actions, to toll a statute of limitations, a

central issue in this case, and with regard to the specified claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983
and New Mexico state law. Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. La Farge, 119 N.M. 532, 534, 893
P.2d 428, 430 (1995).
46.

Defendants collectively fraudulently concealed the actions and wrongdoing of

Defendant Dr. Walden, whether through direct action, or negligent supervision.

47.

Plaintiff C.G. was sexually assaulted by Dr. Walden on several occasions between

March or early April of 2012.

48.

Plaintiff C.G. reports he saw Dr. Walden to get re-prescribed pain medication,

following an infection to his right ankle.

49.

Upon his first visit, he reports that Dr. Walden put his shoe back on and then

reported he needed to perform a physical.

50.

Dr. Walden began suggestively touching C.G. along the chest and stomach, and

then asked him to cough, after pulling down Plaintiffs pants.

7

51.

Dr. Walden suggestively groped C.G.s genitalia, in a way that was medically

unnecessary for the ankle condition.

52.

Dr. Walden then informed C.G. he would need to check his prostate.

53.

Dr. Walden began to digitally, anally probe C.G. until he protested and refused

to participate in the physical any longer.

54.

Dr. Walden prescribed him the requested pain medication for the ankle and C.G.

reports the sexual assault ended at that time.

55.

C.G. refused to be seen by Dr. Walden from that point on, and was transferred to

PNM in June of 2012. He has since returned to NENMDF.

56.

Upon Plaintiff C.G.s attorneys written requests for C.G.s full medical file on

January 14, 2014, and again on March 11, 2014, an incomplete and unresponsive set of
records was returned, which failed to include record of C.G.s visits with Dr. Walden.
57.

Independently obtained and separate medical records demonstrated appointments

for C.G. at NENMDF for 1/23/2012, 4/3/2012, and 4/11/2012. A separate record from
PNM, upon his transfer there in June 2012, demonstrating C.G. had received treatment
for his ankle at NENMDF.
58.

Plaintiff C.G. filed two grievances in August and September of 2013

complaining of the sexual assaults described herein, which were accepted, but not
substantively replied to, nor were the results of NMCDs investigation made known (#s
NE-08-13-14 and 07-13-20).
59.

Plaintiffs C.G. complaint was forwarded to the NMCD Prison Rape Elimination

Act (PREA) coordinator and to the New Mexico State Police, without any further action
taken, as made known the Plaintiff C.G.
8

COUNT I:
(1983 EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDEMENT VIOLATIONS-CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS) vs.
DEFENDANT WALDEN
60.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this

claim.
61.

Plaintiffs have and had a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

62.

Through the actions described above, Defendant Walden violated the Eighth

Amendment right of Plaintiffs to be free from cruel or unusual punishment.

63.

In particular, Defendant Walden violated Plaintiffs' right to be afforded a

reasonable degree of safety from serious bodily attack and to be secure in their bodily
integrity, through sexually assaulting various inmates.
64.

Plaintiffs should not be required to endure sexual assaults to obtain

reasonable medical care in a prison setting.

65.

The actions of Defendant Walden in assaulting Plaintiffs and violating their

clearly established constitutional rights were effected in a manner that was objectively
unreasonable, intentional, willful, and wanton, and done in gross and reckless disregard
of Plaintiffs' rights.
66.

Defendant Walden's unlawful sexual assaults, his violation of inmates' bodily

integrity and right to personal security, both proximately and actually caused Plaintiffs to
suffer damages and injuries.
67.

Plaintiffs had and have a substantive due process right to safety and bodily

integrity as guaranteed under U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

68.

As a result of Defendants actions and omissions, Plaintiffs' suffered damages

which include but are not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, and
psychological and emotional distress.

COUNT II:
(1983 EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDEMENT VIOLATIONS-CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT) vs. DEFENDANTS CORIZON, GEO, JOHN
AND JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF, JOHN AND JANE DOE CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS, HATCH and BRAVO
69. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this
claim.
70. By and through the actions described above, Defendants GEO, Corizon, and
John/Jane Doe medical

staff and corrections

officers

violated

the Eighth

Amendment rights of Plaintiffs to be free from cruel or unusual punishment.

71. In particular, Defendants GEO, Corizon, and John/Jane Doe medical staff and
corrections officers violated Plaintiffs' rights to be afforded a reasonable degree of
safety from serious bodily attack and to be secure in their bodily integrity.
72. These Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights.
Defendants GEO, Corizon, and Joho/Jane Doe medical staff and corrections officers
had specific knowledge of facts and circumstances which would have caused a
reasonable person to conclude that a substantial risk of serious harm existed.
73. Alternatively, the policies enacted and enforced by Defendants GEO, Corizon, and
John/Jane Doe medical staff and corrections officers, including contracting with
Doctors without medical malpractice insurance and otherwise failing to supervise
staff, created 'such an obvious risk of serious harm that the Defendants' knowledge
of this risk can be inferred as a matter of law, constituting negligence per se.
74. The manner in which Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights was wanton, intentional,
reckless, and objectively unreasonable, and done in gross violation of Plaintiffs
Constitutional rights, justifying punitive damages.
10

75. With deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment Constitutional right to

be free of cruel and unusual punishment, Defendants' deliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of harm allowed Defendant Walden to conduct unlawful sexual
assaults and deprive inmates of their bodily integrity and violate their personal
security. Thus, Defendants' proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages and
injuries. These damages include physical injuries, pain and suffering, lost liberty,
and psychological and emotional distress.
76. Defendants knew, had reason to know, and/or kept themselves willfully blind to the
obvious risk they were creating and knowingly permitting to continue.
77. The acts and omissions of Defendants were the legal and proximate cause of
Plaintiffs injuries.
78. Defendants, through their physicians, nurses, other health center staff, and
administrators, had an official policy, custom, or practice that was deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiffs Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
79. The acts and omissions of each Defendant caused Plaintiffs damages in that they
have suffered and continue to suffer physical and mental pain.
80. The actions and omissions of the Defendants as described herein intentionally
deprived Plaintiffs of the securities, rights, privileges, liberties, and immunities
secured by the Constitution of the United States of America.
COUNT III:
(MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE / MALPRACTICE) vs. DEFENDANTS CORIZON,
GEO, JOHN AND JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF, JOHN AND JANE DOE
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, HATCH, BRAVO
81. Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this
claim.
11

82. Defendants Corizon and GEO breached the standard of care and acted in a negligent
manner toward Plaintiffs, through one or more of the following acts or omissions:
A. failing to hire well-qualified employees and medical personnel;

B. failing to provide or require adequate training of their personnel;

I
C. failing to provide adequate procedures and guidelines for sexual assault.
D. Failing to require their physicians to carry malpractice insurance or otherwise

performing negligent credentialing.

83.

Defendants Corizon and GEO acted through their employees, agents, and

medical staff, including but not limited to the nurses, physicians assistants, and
corrections officers, and are therefore liable for their acts and omissions pursuant to the
doctrine of respondeat superior.
84.

The employees, agents, and medical staff of Defendants Corizon and GEO,

including the nurses, PA, and corrections officers failed to provide Plaintiffs adequatemedical services and acted below the standard of care by committing the following acts
and omissions:
A. failing to properly assess the clinical condition of Plaintiffs
B. failing to respond appropriately to or notify the appropriate persons that
Plaintiffs were being subjected to unusual and unnecessary medical treatment;
C. ignoring the legitimate grievances of prisoners without remedial action or
information provided to the inmates.
D. failing to timely intervene despite clear and convincing evidence that inmates,
including Plaintiffs, were being sexually assaulted by Defendant Walden.

12

E.

failing to properly manage and monitor the clinics so as to prevent injury to

Plaintiffs
85.

The acts and omissions of Defendants Corizon and GEO and their employees,

agents, and medical staff were a actual and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs.
86.

Defendants are liable under the New Mexico Medical Malpractice Act and other

common law causes of Action.

COUNT IV:
(MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE / MALPRACTICE) vs. DOCTOR WALDEN
87.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of this

claim.
88.

Defendant Walden held himself out as a trained general practitioner and was

required to provide the medical care of such.

89.

Defendant Walden failed to provide Plaintiffs adequate medical services and

acted below the standard of care for a doctor in New Mexico by committing the acts
as described with particularity herein.
90.

The acts and omissions of Defendant Walden were a direct and proximate cause

of Plaintiffs' injuries as described herein.

91.

As a actual and proximate result of the acts of Defendant Walden, Plaintiffs

suffered damages which are incorporated herein by reference.

COUNT V
(State Law Claims for Negligent Medical Care and Treatment Against all
Defendants)
92.

Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint for purposes of

this claim.

13

93.

Under state law, all Defendants herein had a duty to provide reasonable

medical care and treatment to inmates.

94.

Plaintiffs have and had a separate and distinct right to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment under N.M. Const. art. II 13.

95.

All Defendants breached their duty of care and were negligent when they

failed to provide Plaintiffs with reasonably obtainable and necessary follow-up medical
treatment.
96.

Defendant contractors acted on their own behalf and on behalf of the

Department of Corrections when they committed the acts giving rise to the claims against
them contained in this Complaint and which may later be learned of through discovery.
97.

Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for the harm cased by those actions or

omissions.
98.

Defendants negligence and/or recklessness proximately caused Plaintiffs

significant physical and mental pain and suffering and other damages.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
99.

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek the following relief:

I.

Actual and compensatory damages sufficient to make them whole against the
Defendants, as determined by the fact-finder.

II.

Attorneys fees, litigation expenses, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest as

provided by law; and

14

IV.

Specific relief in the following form: a) written responses documenting the

conclusion of the investigations from the grievances filed by each of the inmates
discussed herein.

V.

Such other and further relief as the Court or jury deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Derek V. Garcia
LAW OFFICE OF DEREK V. GARCIA, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs Civil Rights
PO BOX 53603
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153
(505) 333-8030 Voice
(505)-212-0092 - Fax
derek@derekgarcialaw.com
derekgarcialaw@gmail.com

15