Richter V. Romero Et Al

On February 2, 2024, the Arizona jury returned a defense verdict in favor of the Arizona Department of Corrections officers after finding no violation of the Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights in this prisoner civil rights action.

Case Background

On October 25, 2019, Fernando Hernandez Richter filed a civil rights action against the Arizona Department of Corrections officers before the United States District Court, Arizona (Phoenix Division). Senior Judge David G Campbell presided over this case. [Case number: 2:19cv5513]

Cause

Plaintiff Fernando Richter was a prisoner under the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC). In 2016, after a jury trial in Pima County Superior Court, the court convicted Richter of multiple felonies and sentenced him to a total of 58 years, served consecutively and concurrently.

In March 2016, Richter entered DOC custody to serve his sentence. Prior to incarceration, he had mental health issues and was unemployed, receiving disability payments. His conviction involved his three stepchildren, making him especially vulnerable in prison.

Concerned for his safety, Richter requested protective custody, even though he had not been convicted of a sex offense. The facility initially placed him at ASPC Eyman, Meadows Unit in June 2016. On October 24, 2017, Richter reported under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) that another inmate at Meadows Unit was sexually assaulting him. Around this time, other inmates informed DOC staff that Richter would not be safe there. Consequently, he was moved to ASPC Eyman, Cook Unit.

Two days later, on October 26, 2017, Richter made another PREA complaint to Defendants Romero and Bowers. He detailed ongoing assaults, including nonconsensual sodomy and fellatio, the most recent of which occurred on October 24. Richter also mentioned threats from other prisoners and reported mental health issues, including hallucinations, medication use, and weight loss. He requested help contacting Corizon, the healthcare provider for DOC inmates.

While Richter was interviewed by Defendant Madsen for the PREA investigation, he reiterated the threats he faced. After a brief psychiatric evaluation, he was reassigned to the Cook Unit. Defendants John Doe 1 through 5, aware of the threat to Richter, took no action. Defendants Baltierra and Thompson, who were responsible for officer training, failed to provide adequate training on handling such threats. Later that evening, Officer Clemente found Richter severely assaulted and unresponsive. Richter was transported to Chandler Regional Medical Center (CRMC) by helicopter around 8:40 p.m.

Injury

At Chandler Regional Medical Center (CRMC), doctors diagnosed Mr. Richter with a traumatic brain injury, cerebral hemorrhage, respiratory failure, and a fractured skull. He remained in a coma and could not breathe independently, so doctors intubated him and placed him on a mechanical ventilator. For over a week, he remained comatose and on the ventilator, facing a high risk of death due to the severity of his injuries.

On November 9, 2017, Mr. Richter was discharged from CRMC and transferred to the medical unit at ASPC Florence, a prison complex near ASPC Eyman. His condition was still critical. He had suffered significant brain damage and was mostly incoherent, unable to form sentences longer than two or three words. Mr. Richter could not communicate his needs to guards or medical staff and had become incontinent, requiring diapers.

Though he was no longer in immediate danger of death, Mr. Richter continued to suffer severe and permanent cognitive disabilities from his injuries. He needed help and repetitive instructions for simple tasks, such as entering or exiting a cell or opening his food tray. Richter was profoundly disoriented and often confused about his location and the reason for his medical stay. He mistakenly believed he was in the hospital due to an unrelated accident from years prior, misidentified the current year, and thought he was in his early 20s, despite being 40. Richter had no memory of his trial or his trial counsel.

Medical records characterized him as “childlike,” “delusional,” and “fragmented.” He exhibited tremors and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He remained fecally incontinent and needed assistance for daily activities. Mr. Richter would require professional help for the rest of his life. These disabilities directly resulted from the injuries sustained in the October 26, 2017, assault.

Damages

The Plaintiff requested that the Court rule in his favor and against the Defendants. He asked the Court to grant the following:

1. Provide appropriate declaratory and other injunctive or equitable relief.
2. Award compensatory and consequential damages, including those for emotional distress, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering as permitted by law, with the specific amount determined at trial.
3. Compensate for all economic losses on claims allowed by law.
4. Issue punitive damages on all claims allowed by law, with the amount set at trial.
5. Cover attorney fees and costs related to this action on all claims permitted by law.
6. Apply pre-and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate.
7. Grant any additional relief that the Court deems just and proper, including other relief allowed by law and equity.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Fernando Hernandez Richter
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Amy Sara Armstrong | David A Lane | Madison Suzanne Lips | John Samuel Kooistra
    • Experts for Plaintiff(s): Lora White
  • Defendant(s): Christopher Romero Corrections Officer | Julie Bowers Corrections Officer
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Kathleen L Wieneke | Brendan Francis Porter | Laura A Van Buren

Claims

On February 28, 2020, Mr. Richter was in his housing area at the medical unit of ASPC-Florence, Central Unit, where he lived with several other inmates. Around 1:50 p.m., Randy Larson, another inmate, assaulted Mr. Richter. Larson struck, shoved, and intimidated Mr. Richter for about four minutes, and part of the assault was captured on camera.

A few minutes after the assault, guards, including Defendant Celaya, learned about the altercation. They separated Mr. Richter and Larson conducted interviews, and investigated the incident. The investigation confirmed that Mr. Richter was the victim and Larson was the aggressor. Despite this, Defendant Celaya retaliated against Mr. Richter for his lawsuit by falsely charging him with fighting, a violation of DOC rules.

A disciplinary proceeding was launched against Mr. Richter for the fighting charge, which was investigated by Defendant Stowe. During a hearing on March 19, 2020, Defendant Rubio, the hearing officer, found Richter guilty, contrary to the evidence and as retaliation for his lawsuit. Consequently, Richter faced punishment, his custody level was increased, and his privileges were restricted, despite clear evidence of his victim status.

The corrections officer Defendants, including Defendants Romero, Bowers, Madsen, and John Doe 1 through 5, had a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect Richter from harm. Even though they knew of the excessive risk to his safety at Cook Unit, they allowed him to remain there under inadequate conditions. Despite knowing the risks, their deliberate indifference to Richter’s safety constituted a willful disregard for his well-being. This failure to protect Richter led to substantial harm and violated his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Defense

The Defendants collectively denied the allegations and presented affirmative defenses. They argued that none of the supervisory defendants personally took action or initiated any actions to violate Mr. Richter’s constitutional rights. Consequently, they claimed that they could not be held liable under Section 1983.

Expert Testimony

Plaintiff’s life care planning expert witness, Lora White estimated that the Plaintiff’s future medical care costs at a non-custodial assisted living facility would total between $2.6 million and $13.45 million for the Plaintiff’s remaining lifetime.

Jury Verdict

On February 2, 2024, the Arizona jury returned a defense verdict. The jury found that there had been no failure to protect the Plaintiff in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

On February 8, 2024, following the Jury Verdict filed on February 2, 2024, Judge David G. Campbell entered judgment in favor of Defendants Bowers and Romero, and against Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff received nothing, and the complaint and action were dismissed.

Court Documents:

Available upon request