Dillon Blodgett Complaint and Jury Demand

Case 1:17-cv-02690 Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
ESTATE OF DILLON BLODGETT,

ADRIENNE LEONARD personally and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF
DILLON BLODGETT, deceased;
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC;

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, LLC. d/b/a “CORRECTIONAL
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC.”;
MONTROSE COUNTY, COLORADO, a government entity;
SHERIFF RICK DUNLAP, sued in his official capacity;
UNDERSHERIFF ADAM MURDIE, sued in his official capacity;
COMMANDER ALAN MILLER, in his individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT ROGELLE STROLE, in her individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT FNU MCNULTY, in his individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT FNU STRAIT, in his individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT FNU STOLZ, in his individual and official capacities;
SERGEANT FNU IVERSON, in his individual and official capacities;
NANCY KLIENAPFEL, in her individual capacity;
UNK Counselor, in his/her individual capacity;
UNK LCSW, in his/her individual capacity;
UNK NURSE, in his/her individual capacity;
UNK NURSE, in his/her individual capacity;
Defendants.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Adrienne Leonard, personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dillon
Blodgett, now brings this complaint against all Defendants and requests trial by jury as follows:
-1-
INTRODUCTION
1. This action seeks damages for the death of Dillon Blodgett, who died following self-
directed violence while in solitary confinement at the Montrose County Detention Center (“MCDC”) in
Montrose, Colorado. Despite Mr. Blodgett’s clearly documented struggles with significant mental illness
and risk of suicide, employees and agents of MCDC failed to adequately and appropriately respond to
Mr. Blodgett’s mental health needs and obvious risk of suicide. Because of these failures, Mr. Blodgett
was able to take his own life while in the presence and custody of the MCDC and CCS Defendants.
2. Mr. Blodgett was a pre-trial detainee who was housed at the MCDC November 18th
of 2015 until January 20th of 2016 where he suffered from serious mental illness including depression,
anxiety, suicidal ideations and at least one previous suicide attempt.
3. Mr. Blodgett arrived at MCDC on November 18th, 2015 at risk of suicide as
evidenced by his statement at intake that he had a history of trying to commit suicide.
4. Medical and detention staff at MCDC were consciously aware of Mr. Blodgett’s
serious medical condition and factors associated with substantial risk of suicide. Deliberately
failing to address mental health issues further exacerbated Mr. Blodgett’s mental health problems
and risk of suicide.
5. As a direct result of failure to treat Mr. Blodgett’s serious medical condition, failure
to properly assess for risk of suicide, continued detention in solitary confinement and failure to
take the basic steps to prevent Mr. Blodgett’s self-directed violence Defendants caused the death
of Dillon Blodgett.
-2-
6. Defendants’ conduct, under color of state law, proximately caused the deprivation
of Mr. Blodgett’s federally protected rights.
JURISDICTION and NOTICE
7. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and is being
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201
and 2202. Jurisdiction in support of attorneys’ fees and costs is conferred by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
9. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All alleged events and omissions occurred in the State of Colorado
where Defendants maintain offices and/or reside.
10. Supplemental pendent jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because violations
of federal law alleged are substantial and the pendent causes of actions derive from a common
nucleus of operative facts.
11. The state law claims in this matter are brought against a private corporation and
therefore no notice of claims was required to them under the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act.
-3-
PARTIES
Plaintiff:
12. The Plaintiff, Adrienne Leonard, (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Leonard”) is a
natural person.
13. Ms. Leonard was also the biological mother to Dillon Blodgett and is the Personal
Representative of the estate of Dillon Blodgett.
14. At all times hereto, Ms. Leonard was and is a Citizen of the State of Colorado, a
state within the United States of America.
15. Ms. Leonard currently lives in Broomfield County, Colorado with a physical
address of 15985 Quandary Loop, Broomfield, Colorado 80023.
Defendants:
Correct Care Solutions Related Defendants
16. Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC ("CCS") is a Kansas corporation doing
business in the State of Colorado, with its principal street address located at 1283 Murfreesboro
Road, Suite 500, Nashville, TN 37217. Its registered agent of service in Colorado is located at
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive #575, Denver, CO 80209. On information and belief, this
company contracts with Montrose County to provide medical services to inmates and detainees at
Montrose County Detention Facility and supervises and implements such care.
-4-
17. Defendant Correctional Healthcare Companies, LLC., d/b/a Correctional
Healthcare Management, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Colorado,
with its principal street address located at 1283 Murfreesboro Road, Suite 500, Nashville, TN
37217. Its registered agent of service in Colorado is located at 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
#575, Denver, CO 80209. On information and belief this company contracts with Montrose County
to provide medical services to inmates and detainees at the Montrose County Detention Facility
and supervises and implements such care.
18. Defendant Correctional Care Solutions, LLC and Defendant Correctional
Healthcare Companies, LLC. d/b/a Correctional Healthcare Management, Inc. are collectively
referred to as "CCS Defendants."
19. CCS Defendants are proper entities to be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their
deliberately indifferent policies, practices, habits, customs, procedures, training, and supervision
of staff, including individual Defendants, with respect to the provision of medical care and
treatment for inmates with serious emergency medical needs.
20. At all relevant times, the CCS Defendants were acting under color of state law and
performing a central function of the state thus making them liable under § 1983. All the conduct
of the CCS Defendants and its employees and agents are charged to the government, and CCS
Defendants were acting jointly with the government actors.
21. CCS Defendants are sued directly and indirectly for negligent supervision,
negligent training of their staff, for failing to ensure the provision of appropriate care in the
treatment of Mr. Blodgett, for the acts and omissions of their agents and/or employees, and for the
-5-
herein described acts by their involved employees, agents, staff, and affiliates, who were acting
within the scope and course of their employment.
22. At all times, relevant to the claims against him/her, Defendant UNK Nurse, is a
citizen of the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant
Nurse was/is an employee of CCS Defendants and acted under the color of state law. Defendant
UNK Nurse is sued in his/her individual capacity.
23. At all times, relevant to the claims against him/her, Defendant UNK Nurse, is a
UNK Nurse is sued in his/her individual capacity.
24. At all times, relevant to the claims against him/her, Defendant UNK LCSW, is a
UNK LCSW is sued in his/her individual capacity.
25. At all times, relevant to the claims against him/her, Defendant UNK Counselor, is
a citizen of the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant
UNK Counselor is sued in his/her individual capacity.
-6-
Montrose County Related Defendants
26. Defendant Montrose County Colorado (“Montrose County”) is a political
subdivision of the State of Colorado and is the public entity responsible for Montrose County and
the Montrose County Detention Center (“MCDC”). The MCDC is operated by the Montrose
County Sheriff’s Department.
27. Defendant Sheriff Rick Dunlap is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
and domiciled in the State of Colorado. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Defendant
Sheriff Dunlap was acting under the color of state law in his capacity as the Sheriff for Montrose
County. Defendant Dunlap was responsible for training and supervising all other Defendants and
employees of the Montrose County Sheriff’s Department working at the MCDC, for setting
MCDC policy, practices, procedures and customs, and for insuring the health and welfare of all
persons detained in the MCDC. Defendant Dunlap is sued in his official capacity.
28. Defendant Undersheriff Adam Murdie is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. At all times, relevant to the claims against him,
Defendant Undersheriff Murdie was acting under the color of state law in his capacity as the
Undersheriff for Montrose County. Defendant Murdie was responsible for training and
supervising all other Defendants and other employees of the Montrose County Sheriff’s
Department working at the MCDC, for setting MCDC policy, practices, procedures and customs,
and for insuring the health and welfare of all persons detained in the MCDC. Defendant Murdie is
sued in his official capacity.
-7-
29. Defendant Commander Alan Miller is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. At all times, relevant to the claims against him,
Defendant Miller was acting under the color of state law in his capacity as the Commander of the
MCDC. Defendant Miller was responsible for training and supervising all other Defendants and
other employees of the Montrose County Sheriff’s Department working at the MCDC, for setting
MCDC policy, practices, procedures and customs, and for insuring the health and welfare of all
persons detained in the MCDC. Defendant Miller is sued in his individual and official capacities.
30. At all times, relevant to the claims against her, Defendant Sgt. Rogelle Strole, was
a citizen of the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant
Strole was acting under color of state law in her capacity as a Sergeant employed by the Montrose
County Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Strole is sued in her individual and official capacities.
31. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Sgt. FNU McNulty, was a citizen
of the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant McNulty
was acting under color of state law in his capacity as a Sergeant employed by the Montrose County
Sheriff’s Department. Defendant McNulty is sued in his individual and official capacities.
32. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Sgt. FNU Strait, was a citizen of
the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant Strait was
acting under color of state law in his capacity as a Sergeant employed by the Montrose County
Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Strait is sued in his individual and official capacities.
33. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Sgt. Stolz, was a citizen of the
United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant Stolz was acting
-8-
under color of state law in his capacity as a Sergeant employed by the Montrose County Sheriff’s
Department. Defendant Stolz is sued in his individual and official capacities.
34. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Sgt. FNU Iverson, was a citizen of
the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant Iverson was
acting under color of state law in his capacity as a Sergeant employed by the Montrose County
Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Iverson is sued in his individual and official capacities.
Defendant Nancy Kleinapfel
35. At all times, relevant to the claims against him, Nancy Kleinapfel was a citizen of
the United States and a resident of and domiciled in the State of Colorado. Defendant Kleinapfel
was acting under color of state law in her capacity as a Mental Health Provider for the Midwestern
Colorado Mental Health Center contracting to provide services at the Montrose County Sheriff’s
Department to inmates. Defendant Kleinapfel is sued in her individual capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
36. Ms. Leonard incorporates each paragraph of the Complaint as if fully restated
therein.
37. On November 18, 2015, Dillon Blodgett was booked into the MCDC.
38. On the afternoon of November 20, 2015, Mr. Blodgett completed the intake and
screening process at MCDC.
-9-
39. Mr. Blodgett was placed directly in cell C-401 a maximum security/solitary
confinement placement.
40. As part of the initial intake Mr. Blodgett indicated “yes” to the question “Have you
ever thought about committing suicide?”
41. Beginning November 20, 2015, Mr. Blodgett was housed in C-401 in solitary
confinement where he remained until he was removed from the jail by ambulance.
42. On November 21, 2015 Mr. Blodgett was seen by Nancy Klienapfel from
Midwestern Colorado Mental Health.
43. Mrs. Kleinapfel recommended that Mr. Blodgett receive counseling through Jail
Based Behavioral Services (“JBBS”) “ASAP”.
- 10 -
44. On November 24, 2015, Mr. Blodgett sent a written healthcare request for “therapy
sessions” for “extreme anxiety/depression”.
- 11 -
45. On November 25, 2015, a CCS employee responded to the healthcare request
with “you are on the list for mental health”.
46. On November 30, 2015, Mr. Blodgett’s Public Defender, Kristen Hindman, sent
an email to Sgt. Alan Miller indicating that Mr. Blodgett had a history being on suicide watch
while in custody and could benefit from counseling.
47. On the same day, Sgt. Miller advised Mrs. Hindman that Mr. Blodgett was “on
the list” for mental health services.
48. On December 2, 2015, Mr. Blodgett reported to a CCS employee/contractor that a
friend of his had committed suicide and he was having thoughts about wanting to die.
- 12 -
49. Despite reporting suicidal ideations on December 2, 2015, Mr. Blodgett was not
properly evaluated for risk of suicide, placed on suicide watch or provided with proper mental
health services and remained in C-401 in solitary confinement.
50. On December 15, 2015, Mr. Blodgett wrote and sent a kite to jail staff asking to
see a counselor and was advised he was “on the list”.
51. On January 2, 2016, Mr. Blodgett was seen by a mental health provider for an
“Psychiatric Provider Initial Evaluation” and reported a history of attempted suicide by hanging
two months prior while at the Colorado Department of Corrections.
- 13 -
52. Despite reporting suicidal ideations and a specific method of a recent suicide
attempt in custody, Mr. Blodgett was not properly evaluated for risk of suicide, placed on suicide
watch or provided proper mental health treatment and remained in C-401 in solitary confinement.
53. On January 11, 2016, Mr. Blodgett wrote a kite specifically requesting to see
someone from Mental Health for “mental health related issues”.
54. On January 12, 2016, a CCS employee responded with “you are on the mental
health list”.
55. On January 14, 2016, Mr. Blodgett was seen by a CCS employee/contractor who
completed a Behavioral Special Needs Note.
56. Mr. Blodgett reported having left the Montrose County Community Corrections
facility because he was feeling suicidal.
57. The CCS employee/contractor noted “depression and anxiety” and “occasional” as
to suicidal thoughts.
58. Despite a history of specific prior suicide attempt in custody, presently presenting
suicidal ideations, Mr. Blodgett was not properly evaluated for risk of suicide, placed on a suicide
watch or provided proper mental health treatment and remained in solitary confinement in C-401.
59. On January 20, 2016, after repeated request for mental health, repeated reports of
suicidal ideations and a history of a specific prior suicide attempt Dillon Blodgett remained in
solitary confinement in C-401 at the MCDC on the list for mental health services.
- 14 -
60. Despite a history of specific prior suicide attempt in custody, presently presenting
suicidal ideations, Mr. Blodgett was provided a second towel on the night of January 20, 2016
while housed in solitary confinement.
61. Following a security check at or about 11:00 pm, Mr. Blodgett was found hanging
by his neck from a towel secured using a towel by the top bunk in C-401 in solitary confinement.
62. Despite efforts to revive Mr. Blodgett by MCDC staff, upon leaving C-401, he was
non-responsive to attempts to save his life.
63. Mr. Blodgett was pronounced dead on January 23rd, 2016 at St. Mary’s Hospital in
Grand Junction, CO.
64. The Defendant CCS has a policy and practice of providing inadequate medical and
mental health services to the inmates at the Montrose County Jail.
65. The policy and practice of CCS are the moving force behind the violations of the
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
66. At the time of the events alleged herein, Defendant CCS was a national company
with a shameful history of failing to provide constitutionally adequate medical care to inmates.
67. There is an abundance of examples in Colorado establishing that the CCS
Defendants and the counties that employ them are deliberately indifferent in their policies,
customs, and practices with respect to the medical needs, and constitutional rights of inmates.
68. In McGill v. Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-
1080-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo.) Kenneth McGill sued Defendant CCS for failure to provide appropriate
medical care in response to a stroke he suffered at the Jefferson County Detention Facility.
- 15 -
Defendant CCS employees, acting with deliberate indifference, failed to take Mr. McGill to a
hospital where he could have received necessary emergency medical care. This case went to trial
and resulted in a Plaintiff’s verdict for approximately $11 million.
69. In Revilla v. Stanley Ganz, Sheriff of Tulsa County, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00315-
JED-TLW (N.D. Okla.), several Plaintiffs sued Defendant CCS for three deaths and one near
fatality that occurred in the Tulsa County Jail. One Plaintiff died due to bowel perforation and
sepsis after medical staff refused to transport him to the hospital despite escalating and serious
symptoms. Another detainee died from a heart attack after complaints of chest pain were ignored
for days without emergency transport. A third detainee, who had a known history of cardiovascular
problems, died after complaints of pain, nausea, and vomiting were ignored and emergency
transportation was denied. It was alleged that “[t]here is a longstanding policy, practice or custom
at the jail of CCS/CHM.CHMO and TCSO [the jail] of refusing to send inmates with emergent
needs to the hospital…”
70. In Turley v. Correctional Healthcare Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-
02772-REB-BNB (D. Colo.). Robert Turley experienced severe pain in his throat when a piece of
sandwich became lodged in his esophagus. Mr. Turley started to cough up blood and alerted the
guards and medical personnel. The nurse who evaluated him simply gave him a Tylenol and
advised him that he would have to wait to see the physician. Mr. Turley became hypoxic and
unconscious, and had to be taken by ambulance to the hospital where he underwent emergency
surgery for an esophageal perforation.
- 16 -
71. In Estate of Bruce R. Howard, et al. v. County of El Paso, Colorado et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-02740-CMA-MEH (D. Colo.), Bruce Howard died of a cardiac arrhythmia after CCS
staff denied him his heart medication after his arrest. During his brief incarceration, Mr. Howard
made repeated pleas to CCS medical staff for his heart medication that were ignored. He received
no treatment despite his visible shakiness and assertions that he was hallucinating.
72. A common thread in these cases is that CCS and related companies ignored obvious
signs and symptoms to deny inmates access to necessary medical care.
73. Various governmental institutions have made extensive reports of constitutional
deficiencies in the care provided by CCS- related entities.
74. In Morittz v. Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-
00656-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla.) Michael Morittz died in the Tulsa County Jail. CCS employees
denied his repeated requests to administer his medications. Mr. Morittz’s situation became critical,
and he was finally transported by ambulance to the emergency room where he remained on life
support until his death.
75. In Guerrero v. Wichita County, Texas et al., Case No. 7:14-cv-00058-O (N.D.
Tex.), CCS employees ignored Nicole Guerrero’s clear signs of labor and left her alone in a solitary
cell. CCS staff then neglected to transport her to the hospital for safe delivery of her child. The
newborn was purplish and in need of immediate medical attention upon delivery, yet CCS staff
neglected take steps to resuscitate the newborn or administer CPR. The baby was pronounced dead
shortly after birth.
- 17 -
76. A common thread in these cases is that CCS and related companies ignored obvious
signs and symptoms to deny inmates access to necessary, emergent medical care.
77. Various governmental institutions have made extensive reports of constitutional
deficiencies in the care provided by CCS- related entities.
78. In 2007, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCCS”)
auditors found serious and systematic deficiencies in the medical care provided to Prisoners by
CCS-related companies in the Tulsa Jail, including failure to triage sick calls and failure to provide
emergent medical care in a timely manner.
79. In 2008, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) found that the jail medical program,
administered by a CCS-related entity, was constitutionally deficient in several aspects.
Specifically, the DOJ found problems in “providing appropriate access to medical care during
emergencies” citing a case where a woman went into premature labor and delivered while
handcuffed to a chair. This happened after her complaints, such as her water had broken, were
ignored. The DOJ found that there were “critical lapses in getting emergency medical care to
detainees.” The DOJ also noted that they had conducted a previous tour in 2003 and that, despite
many years to remedy the violations found, “we generally did not observe improved conditions at
the time of our second tour.”
80. In 2009, an Oklahoma Department of Health investigation indicated that
deficiencies by CCS-related companies persisted with little to no change despite the abundant
notice of the same from NCCCS and DOJ.
- 18 -
81. In 2010, during an NCCCS audit, high–level employees of CCS attempted to
fraudulently change medical records to give appearance of compliance. NCCCS found deficient
care, deficient investigation into deaths, and lack of timely diagnostic and specialty services.
Despite this audit, CCS did not take the corrective measures necessary to alleviate the obvious and
substantial risks to inmate health. High-level CCS employees repeatedly brought to CCS’s
attention to the many serious deficiencies, including chronic failures to triage medical requests,
falsification of records, and refusals to treat inmates with life-threatening conditions, but the
corporation failed to make any changes to the way CCS-related companies operated.
82. In November 2011, The Tulsa County Jail’s own retained auditor found
deficiencies in CCS’s care.
83. In 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security’s office of Civil Rights and Civil liberties (“CRCL”) also conducted a review
of the medical care provided by CCS and related companies, reporting: “CRCL found a prevailing
attitude among clinic staff of indifference…”, “Nurses are undertrained. Not documenting or
evaluating properly.”
84. But for custom and practice of deliberate indifference to inmates’ serious medical
needs that was established by the CCS Defendants and their failure to adequately train employees
in meeting the serious medical needs of inmates, Mr. Blodgett would not have been subjected, in
the form of failure to provide him medical attention, to a deprivation of his constitutional rights.
This deprivation was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the CCS Defendants’ acts and
omissions.
- 19 -
85. The intentional actions or inactions of each individual Defendant as described
herein intentionally deprived Mr. Blodgett of due process and of rights, privileges, liberties, and
immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States of America.
86. As a direct and proximate result of each individual Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights were violated and have suffered damages entitling him to compensatory
damages against the Defendants. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages against the deputy-
Defendants to redress their willful, malicious, wanton and reckless conduct in violation of
Plaintiff’s civil rights.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
(Against all Defendants)
87. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of the Complaint as if restated fully therein.
88. At all times, relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Defendants acted under
the color of state law.
89. Ms. Leonard was and is a citizen of Colorado of Colorado and all the individual
Defendants are persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
90. Mr. Blodgett was a citizen of Colorado and all the individual Defendants are
persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 20 -
91. Mr. Blodgett had a clearly established right under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to be free from deliberate indifference to his known serious
medical needs.
92. Everyone knew or should have known of this clearly established right at the time
of Mr. Blodgett’s intake and classification at MCDC.
93. At all times, relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, each individual Defendant
knew of and disregarded the substantial risks associated with Mr. Blodgett’s serious medical
condition.
94. Nonetheless, with deliberate indifference to Mr. Blodgett’s constitutional right to
adequate medical and mental health care, as provided by the Eighth Amendment against cruel and
unusual punishment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, Defendants knowingly failed to examine, treat, and/or care for Mr. Blodgett’s serious
medical/mental health condition. They did so despite their knowledge of Mr. Blodgett’s serious
medical/mental health needs, thereby causing him to become further isolated, depressed, hopeless
and suicidal. Therefore, Defendants knew or were aware that Mr. Blodgett faced a substantial risk
of harm from self-directed violence and disregarded this excessive risk by failing to take timely
measures to reduce it.
95. When Mr. Blodgett alerted the individual Defendants to his need for mental health
treatment, Defendant’s acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Blodgett’s clear need for
treatment and his constitutional rights by failing to obtain timely and proper mental health
treatment for him.
- 21 -
96. All the deliberately indifferent acts of each individual Defendant were performed
within the scope of their official duties and employment.
97. The acts or omissions of each individual Defendant were the legal and proximate
cause of Mr. Blodgett’s self-directed violence resulting in death.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Fourteenth Amendment Violations
Deprivation of Life Without Due Process
(Against all Defendants)
98. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
99. All Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under color
of state law.
100. At the time of Mr. Blodgett’s death, Mr. Blodgett had a clearly established
constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to not be
deprived of life without due process of law.
101. The acts and omissions of the individual Defendants were the moving force behind
and proximate cause of Mr. Blodgett’s death without due process of law.
102. The acts and omissions of CCS Defendants and Montrose County Defendants
deprived Mr. Blodgett of the rights, privileges, liberties and immunities secured by the United
States Constitution and caused him other damages.
- 22 -
103. The acts and omissions in which the Defendants were engaged were pursuant to the
customs policies, and practices of the CCS Defendants and Montrose County Defendants, which
encourage, condone, tolerate, and ratify deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of
inmates by those acting under color of state law, and the right to not be deprived of life without
due process. Those customs, policies and practices were the moving forces and proximate causes
of Mr. Blodgett’s death and all related damages.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Medical Negligence Causing Wrongful Death
(Against CCS Defendants and Defendant Klienapfel)
forth herein.
105. CCS Defendants are private corporations that contract to provide medical care and
health services to inmates at MCDC or agents of such private corporations where conduct as
described herein was engaged in within the scope of their agency.
106. Defendants LPNs are private individuals, and not public officials or employees.
107. Defendants Counselors are private individuals, and not public officials or
employees.
108. Defendant Klienapfel is a private individual, and not public officials or employees.
109. CCS Defendants, Defendant LPNs, Defendant Counselors and Defendant
Klienapfel are not entitled to any immunity under the CGIA or otherwise.
- 23 -
110. At all times relevant hereto, Dillon Blodgett was under the care and treatment of
the CCS Defendants’ staff, including Defendants, through their contractual relationship with
Montrose County.
111. The CCS Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligent acts and omissions by
its agents and/or employees including those individually named herein, and directly liable for their
own negligent failures in training, policies, and practices.
112. Defendants had a duty to provide reasonable medical care and treatment to inmates
at the MCDC, including Mr. Blodgett, and to exercise reasonable care in the training and
supervision of their employees.
113. These duties are informed by state law. Under C.R.S. 16-3-40, “prisoners arrested
or in custody shall be treated humanely, and provided with adequate food, shelter, and, if required,
medical treatment.” The provision of medical treatment and humane care is a statutory obligation
under this and other statutes. These duties are also informed by NCCHC standards.
114. Agents and employees of the CCS Defendants, while acting within the scope of
their employment, vicariously committed negligent acts and omissions set forth herein with respect
to the care and treatment of Mr. Blodgett.
115. UNK Nurse had a nurse-patient relationship with Mr. Blodgett and was acting or
failing to act within the scope of her employment with CCS Defendants at all times pertinent to
this Complaint.
- 24 -
116. UNK Nurse had a nurse-patient relationship with Mr. Blodgett and was acting or
failing to act within the scope of her employment with CCS Defendants at all times pertinent to
this Complaint.
117. UNK LCSW had a counselor-patient relationship with Mr. Blodgett and was acting
or failing to act within the scope of her employment with CCS Defendants at all times pertinent to
this Complaint.
118. Defendant Nancy Klienapfel had a counselor-patient relationship with Mr. Blodgett
and was acting or failing to act within the scope of her employment as an agent to MCDC at all
times pertinent to this Complaint.
119. Other caregivers at MCDC involved in the negligent treatment of Mr. Blodgett were
acting within the scope of their employment with CCS related Defendants.
120. Involved caregivers at MCDC including LPN Defendant’s, Defendant Counselors,
Defendant Klienapfel and others named in the Statement of Facts, owed Mr. Blodgett a duty to
exercise that degree of care, skill, caution, diligence and foresight exercised by and expected of
counselors/nurses in similar situations.
121. Involved caregivers at MCDC consciously disregarded a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that knew or should have known would cause the death of another.
122. A certificate of review was completed regarding this claim prior to the filing of this
complaint.
- 25 -
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations
(Against Montrose County Related Defendants)
forth herein. Montrose County Related Defendants placed and held Dillon Blodgett in solitary
confinement for the duration of his time based on classification. Mr. Blodgett was deprived of
access to programs, recreational time, contact with staff and inmates, and had limited access to
mental health treatment based on his classification to solitary confinement. This placement
consisted of punishing conditions of confinement without due process of law. Further, the same
conditions amounted to cruel and unusual treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
forth herein.
125. Plaintiff is the heir of the Estate of Dillon Blodgett.
126. Because of the deliberate indifference and/or negligence of Defendants as described
above, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited, to funeral expenses,
emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, and grant:
a) Appropriate relief at law and equity;

b) Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional
distress, humiliation, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law
in an amount to be determined at trial;
- 26 -
c) Attorney’s fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees on all
claims allowed by law;
d) Punitive damages as to the Defendants to redress their willful, malicious,
wanton and reckless conduct in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights;
e) Pre-and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and
f) Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper, and any other relief as
allowed by law.
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL MATTERS SO TRIABLE.
Dated this 10th day of November 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Daniel R. Shaffer
Daniel R. Shaffer, No.35661
405 Ridges Blvd., Suite B
Grand Junction, CO 81507
Phone: (970) 243-2552
Fax: (970) 243-3905
lawyerdan@danielshafferlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Adrienne Leonard
- 27 -

Dillon Blodgett Complaint and Jury Demand

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dillon Blodgett Complaint and Jury Demand

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:17-cv-02690 Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No.

ESTATE OF DILLON BLODGETT,

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

anxiety, suicidal ideations and at least one previous suicide attempt.

3. Mr. Blodgett arrived at MCDC on November 18th, 2015 at risk of suicide as

and risk of suicide.

of Mr. Blodgett’s federally protected rights.

JURISDICTION and NOTICE

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201

where Defendants maintain offices and/or reside.

10. Supplemental pendent jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because violations

nucleus of operative facts.

12. The Plaintiff, Adrienne Leonard, (hereinafter referred to as “Ms. Leonard”) is a

Representative of the estate of Dillon Blodgett.

state within the United States of America.

address of 15985 Quandary Loop, Broomfield, Colorado 80023.

Correct Care Solutions Related Defendants

17. Defendant Correctional Healthcare Companies, LLC., d/b/a Correctional

and supervises and implements such care.

18. Defendant Correctional Care Solutions, LLC and Defendant Correctional

referred to as "CCS Defendants."

treatment for inmates with serious emergency medical needs.

Defendants were acting jointly with the government actors.

within the scope and course of their employment.

UNK Nurse is sued in his/her individual capacity.

UNK Nurse is sued in his/her individual capacity.

UNK LCSW is sued in his/her individual capacity.

UNK Counselor is sued in his/her individual capacity.

Montrose County Related Defendants

26. Defendant Montrose County Colorado (“Montrose County”) is a political

County Sheriff’s Department.

sued in his official capacity.

Department. Defendant Stolz is sued in his individual and official capacities.

Defendant Nancy Kleinapfel

Department to inmates. Defendant Kleinapfel is sued in her individual capacity.

screening process at MCDC.

ever thought about committing suicide?”

Midwestern Colorado Mental Health.

Based Behavioral Services (“JBBS”) “ASAP”.

sessions” for “extreme anxiety/depression”.

with “you are on the list for mental health”.

while in custody and could benefit from counseling.

the list” for mental health services.

48. On December 2, 2015, Mr. Blodgett reported to a CCS employee/contractor that a

health services and remained in C-401 in solitary confinement.

see a counselor and was advised he was “on the list”.

two months prior while at the Colorado Department of Corrections.

someone from Mental Health for “mental health related issues”.

completed a Behavioral Special Needs Note.

facility because he was feeling suicidal.

while housed in solitary confinement.

non-responsive to attempts to save his life.

Grand Junction, CO.

mental health services to the inmates at the Montrose County Jail.

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

67. There is an abundance of examples in Colorado establishing that the CCS

and resulted in a Plaintiff’s verdict for approximately $11 million.

needs to the hospital…”

surgery for an esophageal perforation.

signs and symptoms to deny inmates access to necessary medical care.