Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy
of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to this Complaint upon
the subscriber at the address shown below, within thirty (30) days after service hereof, exclusive
of the day of such service, and if you fail to Answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be
rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
PARTIES
under the laws of the State of South Carolina and has facilities located
throughout the State, and more particularly, in Lee County, South Carolina
mentioned in this lawsuit, the Defendant SCDC acted and carried on their
Page 1 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
business by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees at its
in Lee County.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
and custody of the Lee Correctional Institution, where he remained until April
question, Lee Correctional Institution (as a level (3) three Correctional Institute)
had a long history of overcrowding and failing to provide adequate security and
have known that their failure to provide adequate security measures would
7. Further, just prior to and during the time period in question, the
Page 2 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
were well aware of the existence of competing gangs as well as the potential for
Additionally, the administrative staff of Lee was well aware that the F-3 Unit
Defendant that a large percentage of the inmate population carried and/or had
Defendant knew or should have known that their conscious failure to provide
adequate security measures would result in unsafe conditions for the inmate
9. Prior to and during the time period in question SCDC policy and
procedure required direct supervision of all inmates located within the Lee
Correctional Institution, and specifically, the F-3 Unit. This required there to be
at least one (1) correctional officer to be present in each wing of each unit
24hrs a day. Prior to and during the time period in question there was
normally only one (1) correctional officer working both wings of the F-3 Unit.
Additionally, there was many times when there were no correctional officers
10. Additionally, prior to and during the time period in question SCDC
checks at least once every thirty (30) minutes. This required the correctional
officer to actually see and confirm each inmate located within the unit during
these security checks were alive and well. Prior to and during the time period
Page 3 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
in question, this was not being performed in conscious violation of the SCDC
11. Additionally, prior to and during the time period in question, SCDC
policy and procedure required that the unit doors, sally-port doors and cell
doors be locked at all times. Prior to and during the time period in question
this was typically not done in conscious violation of the SCDC policy and
procedure.
times (other than for controlled movements) with a correctional officer present
to ensure that inmates remain in the wing which they are assigned to. Prior to
and during the time period in question this was not being done in conscious
inmate count is to take place around the time of shift-change at 7:00am and
7:00pm – at which time all inmates are supposed to be locked down within
their assigned cells. On the date in question these policies were being
14. During the time period in question SCDC policy and procedure
required that the correctional officers working the housing units (such as the
F-3 Unit) be properly trained to recognize and provide emergency medical care
to inmates who required such care. Also, during the time period in question
SCDC/Lee Correctional Institution had the duty to provide inmates with 24-
Page 4 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
15. On April 15, 2018, around approximately 6:00pm, the Plaintiff was
housed in the B-Wing and was on the A-Wing of the F-3 Unit playing cards.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that at this time there was only one (1)
correctional officer covering both wings of the F-3 Unit and that she was mainly
on the B-wing. Additionally, the Plaintiff is informed and believes that all
interior doors (to include all cell doors and those doors leading in and out of
each wing) were all unlocked and open. This allowed inmates to improperly
(around the time of shift-change) the Plaintiff witnessed the on-coming shift
correctional guard running through the A-wing and then saw a fellow inmate
laying on the floor bleeding from what appeared to be stab wounds. Fearing for
his own life, the Plaintiff attempted to barricade himself into one of the A-wing
However, due to all of the cell doors not being locked, the Plaintiff was unable
to secure the door to the cell he was in; allowing several inmates to push in
and attack him. As a direct result of this attack, the Plaintiff was stabbed at
least twenty (20) times at different locations on his person (to include his head,
16. After completing their violent attack on the Plaintiff, the attackers
then moved on to other inmates within the unit where they violently attacked
and stabbed four (4) other inmates. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that
Page 5 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
these attacks went on over the course of several hours, in multiple housing
units, and resulted in the known deaths of seven (7) inmates and the critical
17. After the violent attack on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff attempted to
get help by making his way back to B-wing where he collapsed on the floor. At
this point the Plaintiff was able to see several correctional staff outside of the
unit door. The Plaintiff called out to these staff members begging for
assistance, but none was immediately given. Instead the Plaintiff was forced to
bleed and suffer on the floor for approximately 30-45mins before correctional
staff finally came onto the wing and the Plaintiff was moved to medical. The
Plaintiff remained in the medical office for approximately two (2) hours before
While at the hospital the Plaintiff was treated for stab wounds to his head,
shoulder, arms, hands and back. As a direct result of the incident in question
the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from pain, paranoia, and
nightmares.
18. After this incident and based on numerous other incidents just like
it, SCDC will fail to perform a proper investigation into the incidents in
question. As a result, the above mentioned attacking inmates will most likely
Page 6 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
19. The Plaintiff reiterates each and every previous relevant allegation
20. The above set forth incidents and the Plaintiff’s resulting injuries
and damages were proximately caused by the grossly negligent, reckless, and
Page 7 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
l. In failing to provide any level of security in the F-3
Unit of Lee Correctional Institution after multiple events
indicating danger;
and grossly negligent conduct, the Plaintiff was severely injured, suffered
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant, for
an award of actual and consequential damages, the costs of this action, and for
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Page 8 of 9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 08 7:42 AM - LEE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP3100139
_s/C. Carter Elliott, Jr._______
C. Carter Elliott, Jr., Esq.
Elliott & Phelan, LLC
117 ½ Screven Street
P.O. Box 1405
Georgetown, SC 29442
(843) 546-0650
(843) 546-1920 (fax)
May 8, 2018
Georgetown, SC Cezar E. McKnight, Esq.
106 South Acline St.
P.O. Box 688
Lake City, SC 29560
(843) 374-4529
(843) 374-4535 (fax)
Page 9 of 9