Del. Rejects Claim Officials Ordered Inmate Beatings After Prison Uprising
Attorneys from the Delaware Department of Justice on Tuesday attacked the most recent round of allegations in a prisoner lawsuit stemming from the February 2017 takeover of James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, saying that it was an "incredible leap" to accuse state officials of ordering constitutional violations in retaliation for the deadly incident last February.
February 28, 2018 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Attorneys from the Delaware Department of Justice on Tuesday attacked the most recent round of allegations in a prisoner lawsuit stemming from the February 2017 takeover of James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, saying that it was an “incredible leap” to accuse state officials of ordering constitutional violations in retaliation for the deadly incident last February.
Joseph C. Handlon, head of the DOJ's Defensive Litigation Unit, said in a court filing that an attorney for JTVCC inmate Donald Parkell had cited no evidence to support his client's claims earlier this month that top officials at the prison had ordered beatings following the 19-hour ordeal at the prison's C Building last February.
“Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from a complaint, not speculative ones,” Handlon wrote in a 10-page brief.
A spokeswoman for the Delaware Department of Correction has denied the allegations “flat out,” but declined to comment further on the pending litigation.
The dispute has emerged as Parkell's lawyer, James S. Green Sr., tries to survive a motion to dismiss the suit and force the case into discovery.
Parkell, a medium-security inmate at the Smyrna prison, has accused state officials of creating a “toxic” environment that led to abuses and said that inmates were unconstitutionally denied access to medical treatment and religious diets and were subjected to beatings in response to the riot, which left veteran corrections officer Lt. Steven Floyd Sr. dead.
On Feb. 6, Parkell alleged, for the first time, that DOC Commissioner Perry Phelps and the prison's former Wardens David Pierce and Phillip Parker directed corrections officers to assault inmates after authorities retook the facility and later formed teams of guards to “terrorize and torture” the prisoners.
“Without discovery, except as reflected in the public record, plaintiff cannot know with certainty which defendant gave which order,” Green wrote.
Handlon conceded that while first responders “may have acted aggressively” when retaking the building, there was nothing to tie officials to the supposed abuses. And he criticized Parkell for not properly raising those kinds of factual allegations in his complaint.
“The court should reject the many inaccuracies and other speculation strewn throughout the answering brief. The adequacy of allegations as to the named defendants must be based upon what plaintiff has alleged in the [third amended complaint] and nothing else,” he said.
Green, a partner with Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Handlon also took aim Tuesday at Parkell's claim that former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell should be held liable for spending decisions that allegedly drained the prison of resources and set the stage for last year's attack.
According to Parkell, Markell deliberately understaffed the prison and failed to train correctional officers who worked there, resulting in a “pervasive disdain” between staff and prisoners that made the uprising “predictable and inevitable.”
But Handlon argued that Markell was protected by qualified immunity and that allegations of inadequate staffing were not relevant to the case.
A total of 18 inmates have been charged in relation to the incident, and 16 are facing murder charges in Floyd's death.
Floyd's family and DOC staff injured in the ordeal settled a separate case against the state for more than $7.5 million in December.
The current case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware is captioned Parkell v. Pierce.
It also names current JTVCC Warden Dana Metzger, Department of Safety and Homeland Security Secretary Robert Coupe and unnamed prison staff as defendants.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Most New Eversheds Sutherland US Partners Are in Atlanta
- 2Graffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
- 3Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 4Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 5SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250