Quantcast

George W. Hill correctional facility operators deny that prison failed to stop assault against plaintiff

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

George W. Hill correctional facility operators deny that prison failed to stop assault against plaintiff

State Court
Matthewhfry

Fry | Burns White

MEDIA – The Florida-based operating companies of George W. Hill Correctional Facility have denied that it negligently failed to prevent the brutal assault a Delaware County man alleges he sustained at the hands of another inmate.

Lamar Gordy of Linwood first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on March 31 versus GEO Secure Services, LLC and The GEO Group, Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla.

“On or about April 17, 2021, plaintiff was an inmate at George W. Hill Correctional Facility (a.k.a. “Delaware County Prison”) and was assigned to Block 10-B, Cell 101. On April 17, 2021, plaintiff was violently and brutally assaulted by another inmate, Rashaud Cottman, in the Day Room of Block 10-B. Rashaud Cottman should not have been placed in the same block as plaintiff, as plaintiff is accused of a crime upon the brother of Rashaud Cottman. The Prison was aware of a separation order which mandated that plaintiff and Rashaud Cottman be separated at all times for this reason,” the suit said.

“Block 10-B and Block 10-C are known as ‘The Hole’ or ‘Max Bail.’ The downstairs cell housing units of Block 10-Bare known as Max Bail. The upstairs cell housing units in Block 10-B are known as the Disciplinary Detention unit. The third-party Rashaud Cottman was housed in the Disciplinary Detention unit. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that Rashaud Cottman was housed in Block 10-C and requested to be moved to Block 10-B for the purpose of having the opportunity to assault plaintiff. Upstairs in Block 10-B (known as the Disciplinary Detention unit) does not have recreation at the same time as the downstairs of Block 10B (known as The Hole or Max Bail).”

The suit added that as the plaintiff was performing his job duty of serving meals to the inmates in the downstairs of Block 10-B, the upstairs area of cells (known as the Disciplinary Detention unit) were coming out of their cells for their recreation time. At this point, the inmates in the Disciplinary Detention unit were handcuffed during their recreation time.

“The third-party Rashaud Cottman was one of the inmates leaving the Disciplinary Detention unit to go to the downstairs for recreation time. He somehow got loose of one of his handcuffs. At this time, he assaulted and battered plaintiff using the chain and cuff as a violent weapon that had become detached from one of his wrists. The assault occurred in the recreation area of Block 10-B and is captured on video surveillance. This assault and battery was witnessed by inmate Terrance Zanchuck, Inmate No. 19009539. As a result of the aforementioned assault and battery, plaintiff received bruising to his eye a cut and scar on his head and bruising and other injuries throughout his body. Plaintiff was taken to the medical unit of the Prison where photographs were taken of the injuries to his face. The photographs were taken by Sergeant Amouzu,” the suit stated.

“On numerous occasions prior to the assault, plaintiff expressed to the staff of the Prison that Rashaud Cottman was going to seek vengeance upon him. The Prison further had notice by the perpetrator constantly yelling from his cell to plaintiff statements such as, ‘I’m going to get you.’ Defendants, each of them through their negligence, actions, policies and/or indifference, allowed plaintiff to be assaulted and battered while he was in their custody and under their exclusive control. At all times relevant hereto, each of the defendants were vicariously liable for all negligent, reckless, intentional, wrongful, deliberately indifferent and unlawful conduct.”

UPDATE

On Nov. 10, the defendants filed an answer and new matter, which denied the plaintiff’s account and asserted that his injuries were the result of his own actions.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act apply in this case to limit or bar plaintiff’s cause of action. Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Plaintiff assumed the risk of his own conduct. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by the negligence and/or liability-producing acts or omissions of parties or other entities over whom answering defendants neither had control nor the ability to control.,” the new matter stated, in part.

“Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred and/or limited as plaintiff’s own actions and/or inactions were the cause-in-fact and/or legal cause of his alleged damages. The acts and/or omissions of entities and/or individuals other than answering defendants were the cause-in-fact and/or legal cause of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred and/or limited by facts and defenses which will become apparent during discovery and answering defendants specifically reserve the right to amend this new matter prior to trial. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, laches and/or estoppel. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.”

The answer added that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, that the defendants assert all common law and statutory immunity and qualified immunity to which they may be entitled and that the plaintiff’s civil rights were not violated.

For counts of federal civil rights violations and state law claims of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, reasonable past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, damages for past and future pain and suffering, such other and further relief as appears reasonable and just, punitive damages and all other damages recoverable under 42 U.S.C Section 1983.

The plaintiff is represented by James D. Famiglio of James D. Famiglio, P.C., in Media.

The defendants are represented by Matthew H. Fry of Burns White, in West Conshohocken.

Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-002813

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News