COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

WORCESTER, ss WORCESTER SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

JOHN F. CAMPBELL, MICHAEL C. HARJU, )

MARLON GUARDADO, RONALD G. PARIS, )
HECTOR M. RODRIGUEZ, RAHEEM CHILDERS, ) 10-0397C--
FRANZ HARRIS, JR., PLAINTIFF NEVIN DUSTIN )
HIRAM IRIZARRY MonCA, MYRON VACCA, )
PHIIrLIP C. SHANNONHOUSE, and )
TIMOTHYM. VARGO, )
Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
I
GUY GLODIS, WORCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF, ) FEB 2 2 2010
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, )
FNH USA, LLC, US CORRECTIONS SPECIAL ) ATTEST: f\ 0 J I A
~ JWV~ CLERK
OPERATIONS GROUP CORP., )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this class action, plaintiffs challenge a pervasive practice of the Worcester County
house of Correction ('the jail") of subjecting inmates to threats and use of excessive and
disproportionate force and to cruel and unusual punishment.

2. The challenged practice is carried out by means of the actual and threatened use by,
without justification: 1) spraying them with Oleoresin Capsicum ("OC" or "pepper"
spray)., 2) denying timely decontamination to victims ofthe same and in some cases
hooding them for extended periods of time without OC decontamination or otherwise so
as to impede breathing, 3) shooting inmates at close range with plastic bullets from a
dangerous weapon, the FN 303 "less lethal" launcher, and, 4) placing inmates in full
restraints prone on metal beds for extended periods of time.

3. Plaintiffs sue for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of present and future inmates
of the jail and for damages on behalf of those subjected to the practice by one or more of
the means enumerated on or after February 20,2007.

1
ll. OUTLINE AND INDEX OF ALLEGATIONS

4. The following provides an outline of the allegations ofthis Complaint, along with
the number ofthe first paragraph that corresponds to each of the outline headings:

I. Introduction, ~ 1
II. Outline and index of allegations, ~4
III. Jurisdiction and Venue, ~ 5
IV. Parties
A. Plaintiffs, ~ 9
B. Defendants, ~ 21
V. Threats and use of excessive, and restraints, ~ 25
A. Punitive use of OC spray, ~ 33
B. Punitive denial of decontamination to OC spray victims and similar
conduct, ~ 36
C. Punitive shootings with the FN303, ~ 37
D. Restraints, ~ 48

VI Denial of access to administrative remedies ~ 60.

VII. Class Action Allegations, ~ 62

VII. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ~ 75
X. Claims ~ 77

ill. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts including but not limited to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c.
258.

5. The Court has jurisdiction of the action per M.G.L. c. 258 § 3 and c. 212, §§ 3 - 4.

6. The Court has personal Jurisdiction over defendants within the commonwealth, and as to
defendants outside of Massachusetts personal jurisdiction is based upon: (a) the
defendants' business transactions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (b) contracting
to supply services or things in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (c) causing tortious
injury by acts or omissions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or (d) regularly
doing or soliciting business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (e) placed goods in
the stream of commerce in Massachusetts or (f) deriving substantial benefit from any
course of conduct within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or from goods used or
consumed or services rendered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as set forth in the
so-called Long-Arm Statute of Massachusetts, M.G.L. c. 223A, § 3.

2
7. Venue is proper in Worcester County pursuant to G.L. c. 223 § 1. A majority ofthe
parties reside or have principal place of business in Worcester County and all of the
conduct complained of took place in Worcester County.

IV. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

8. Plaintiff John F. Campbell ("Campbell"), in the last week of February, 2007, was sprayed
with OC, shot with the FN 303, denied decontamination, and placed in restraints long
enough to be forced to urinate on himself. He resides at 55 Harlem Street in the City of
Worcester, Worcester County, Massachusetts.

9. Plaintiff Michael C. Hmju ("Harju"), in the last week of February, 2007, was sprayed
with OC, shot with the FN 303, and placed in restraints for approximately six hours
during which time bathroom access was denied. He resides at 33 Huron Street, City of
Fitchburg, Worcester County.

10. Plaintiff Marlon Guardado ("Guardado"), in the last week of February, 2007, was
sprayed with OC, shot with the FN 303, denied decontamination for five days, and was
placed in restraints for approximately 22 hours in a room with excrement on the floor,
until he was repeatedly forced to urinate on himself. On or about May 24,2007, he was
again sprayed with OC, shot, and locked for 19 hours in a cell with excrement on the
floor and no working toilet. He resides at 56 Goddard Street, City of Fitchburg,
Worcester County.

11. Plaintiff Ronald G. Paris ("Paris") in the last week of February, 2007, was sprayed with
OC and shot with the FN 303. He resides at 50 Pleasant Valley Drive, City of Worcester,
Worcester County.

12. Plaintiff Hector M. Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") was sprayed with OC, shot with the FN
303, and placed in restraints for extended periods on two occasions in the last week of
February, 2007, and on the second occasion was left in restraints in a cold room for 20
hours and hooded so as to impede breathing. He resides at 152 Manco Drive, Town of
Gardner, Worcester County.

13. Plaintiff Raheem Childers ("Childers") during the last week of February, 2007, was shot
with the FN 303 and then placed naked in restraints for approximately 41 hours, during
which period he was forced to urinate on himself twice. He resides in the Bronx, new
York City, New York.

14. Plaintiff Franz Harris, Jr., ("Harris") on three occasions during the last week of February,
2007, was sprayed with OC, shot with the FN 303, and placed in restraints in a cold room
without bathroom breaks to the point that he was forced to soil himself on at least one of
the occasions. He resides at 16 Claudette Drive, Town of Milford, Worcester County.

3
15. PlaintiffNevin Dustin ("Dustin") on or about March 1, 2007, was sprayed with OC, shot
with the FN 303, denied decontamination, placed in restraints for eight hours and also in
a helmet and spit mask. He resides at 29 Sawyer Street, Town of Templeton, Worcester
County.

16. Plaintiff Hirarn Irizarry Mojica ("Mojica") in the last week of February, 2007, was
sprayed with OC, shot at with the FN 303 but not hit and placed in tight restraints with a
mask and helmet for more than eight hours, to the point where he was forced to soil
himself and his hands were blue and swollen. He resides in the City of Worcester,
Worcester County.

17. Plaintiff Myron Vacca ("Vacca") on or about June 21,2007, was shot with the FN 303,
placed in restraints and denied medical attention to penetrating injuries from the shooting
for four days. He resides at 46 Myrtle St, City of Fitchburg, Worcester County.

18. Plaintiff Phillip C. ShaIIDonhouse ("ShaJ.IDonhouse") on or about June 21, 2007, was shot
with the FN 303. He resides at 102 Leighton Street, City of Fitchburg, Worcester
County.

19. Plaintiff Timothy M. Vargo ("Vargo") on or about June 21,2007, was shot with the FN
303 and placed in painfully tight restraints. Though he sustained bleeding wounds from
the shooting he was denied medical attention for four days. He resides at176 Summer
Street, City of Fitchburg, Worcester County.

B. Defendants

20. Defendant Guy Glodis ("Sheriff Glodis") is Sheriff of Worcester County and has his
place of business at 5 Paul Tivnan Drive, Town of West Boylston, Worcester County,
Massachusetts.

21. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("the Commonwealth") is sued purSUaIlt to M. G.

L. c. 258 for conduct of its employees at the Worcester County House of Correction and
conduct of Worcester County Sheriffs Office ("WCSO"), which per Chapter 48 of the
Acts of 1997, G.L. c. 34B et. Seq. & G.L. c. 150E § 1, was at all times pertinent hereto all
independent agency of the Commonwealth operating the jail. The Commonwealth is
based in the City of Boston and the usual place of business ofthe WCSO and the jail is
located 5 Paul Tivnan Drive, West Boylston, Worcester County, Massachusetts

22. Defendant FNH USA, LLC, ("FNH USA") is a subsidiary of Fabrique National Herstal,
S.A. ("Herstal"), a weapons manufacturer. FNH USA is a limited liability corporation
incorporated in Delaware with a usual place of business in McLean, Virginia, and is
engaged in the sale and distribution of firearms and aInmunition, including the FN 303, in
the United States. 1

1 Fabrique National Herstal, S.A. has a usual place of business sat Voire de Liege, 33 B-4040 Herstal, Belgimn.

4
23. Defendant US Corrections Special Operations Group Corp, ("USC-SaG") is a Virginia
Company marketing and providing various services to American cOlTectional institutions,
including but not limited to weaponry equipment testing and evaluation, prison combat
evaluation program, and training in prison tactical operations including in the use ofthe
FN 303. It maintains offices and/or facilities in Washington, DC, and Virginia and in
other locations in the United States and overseas. It lists its principal office as PO Box
5445 in Williamburg, Virginia and its registered agent at Anthony F. Radd, Esq.,
Convergence Center IV, 301 Bendix Road, Suite 500, Virginia Beach Virginia.

IV. THREATS AND USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AND RESTRAINTS

FACTS

24. Each ofthe previous paragraphs is hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

25. At all times pertinent hereto plaintiffs and others similarly situated have been subjected to
a pattern of threats and use of disproportionate force that 1) is not constrained by written
policies designed and enforced to effectively curb abuses; 2) departs from widely-
accepted standards of cOlTections and law enforcement professionals; 3) violates
standards for the safe and proper use of the devices and techniques; 4) poses substantial
and unjustifiable risks to prisoners' health, safety, and well being; and 5) causes mental
distress, pain, physical injuries, and has amounted to summary corporal punishment; and
6) violates prisoners' constitutional rights.

26. At all times pertinent hereto the uses of disproportionate force complained of began with
the refusal of an imnate, while locked in his cell or other confined area and posing no
threat of harm, to "cuff up," i.e., submit to handcuffing while in his cell so that he could
be moved to another location.

27. On infornlation and belief at all times pertinent hereto when a cOlTectional officer ordered
an inmate to cuff up, the inmate was supposed to put his hands behind his back and place
them near a small gate or trap in the cell door, through which the officer could apply
handcuffs from outside a locked cell.

28. Pursuant to policies, practices and procedures adopted, implemented and maintained by
Sheriff Glodis at all times pertinent hereto guard would and still do summon teams of
specially trained and armed teams ("move teams") to remove, or excract, a recalcitrant
inmate from his cell.

29. At all times pertinent hereto a move team doing a cell extraction would and still does
spray the offending imnate with OC, shoot him with the FN303 from distances as close as
three (3) feet until- and on some occasions continuing after - he laid on the floor in
submission.

5
30. Upon an imnate being subdued and cuffed the move team did and still does take him
from general population to be strapped or chained to a metal bed in an isolated cell,
sometimes being allowed to wash the spray off first and sometimes not.

31. In some instances, as noted above, inmates were placed in restraints with hoods or masks
that impeded comfortable breathing either physically or, in the case of imnates who had
not been permitted to wash the OC from their faces and hair, chemically.

32. A report of April 29, 2008, report to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick the U.S.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division ("DOJ report") found that investigations of
uses of force on inmates by jail staff were not effective at detennining when force was
excessive because of a lack of standards, for example, the lack of requirement to review
an inmate's medical record to detennine if injuries sustained in an incident were
consistent with the staff's account of the incident.

A. Punitive use of OC spray

33. In March of2006 and in January of2007, Sheriff Glodis and the WCSO adopted policies
that, consistent with previous WCSO policies, approved the use of Oleoresin Capsicum
spray ("pepper spray") on inmates during cell extractions.

34. On information and belief OC spray induces stinging or burning sensations in the eyes,
upper respiratory tract and sinuses.

35. Plaintiffs Campbell, Harju, Guardado, Paris, Rodriguez, Harris, Dustin, and Mojica, were
sprayed with OC at the start of extractions notwithstanding that they were confined and
posed no threat of harm to any person.

36. The DOJ reportfound that the jail "does not comply with generally accepted professional
standards or its own policy regarding the use" of OC spray.

37. The DOJ report stated "no evidence" had been found in its review that jail staff consulted
inmates' medical records for contraindications to OC use.

B. Punitive denial of decontamination to OC spray victims and similar conduct

38. Notwithstanding that jail regulations purported to require that victims ofOC spraying
have the opportunity to wash the spray off themselves, timely washing was denied to
inmates Campbell, Guardado, Rodriguez, and Dustin and/or they were hooded or masked
while in restraints in such a way as to impede breathing or otherwise to cause discomfort.

39. The DOJ report found that imnates sprayed with OC were frequently denied access to a
shower or sink for decontamination before they were placed in restraints.

6
 C. Punitive shootings with the FN303

40. The FN303 "less lethal launcher," ("FN 303" or "weapon") is a kinetic energy weapon
manufactured by Herstal and marketed, sold and supplied to the WCSO by Herstal's
subsidiary FNH USA.

41. According to FNH USA the FN 303 fires a .68 caliber fin-stabilized projectile weighing
8.5 grams.

42. According to FNH USA the FN303 is a semiautomatic weapon that fires 15 rounds
without reloading, with a muzzle velocity of280 to 300 feet per second [equivalent to
191 to 204 miles per hour] and is capable of "incapacitating specific targets" by inflicting
"shock and pain."

43. Projectiles of kinetic energy weapons, and in particular of the FN303, can and do cause
fist-sized bruises, penetrating injuries, internal injuries, and fatal injuries - the shorter the
distance from which the victim is shot the greater the likelihood of severe or life
threatening injury.

44. In October of 2006 Sheriff Glodis approved and promulgated a policy directing the
shooting of inmates at close range with the FN303 for the sole purpose of facilitating the
removal of individual inmates from their cells, even in circumstances where a prisoner
did not violently resist removal.

45. The aforesaid policy provided for shooting inmates with the FN303 from a distance of no
less than three (3) feet "in defensive and/or offensive tactical, crowd control and
custodial facilities situations."

46. In March of2006 and in January of2007, Sheriff Glodis and the WCSO adopted policies
that, consistent with previous WCSO policies, approved the use of Oleoresin Capsicum
spray ("pepper spray") on inmates during cell extractions.

47. In accordance with the aforesaid policies for use of the FN303 and pepper spray in cell
extractions, Sheriff Glodis purchased the weapons and pepper spray and provided them to
move teams, and he further contracted with FNH USA and USC-SOG to provide training
to move team officers in use and maintenance ofthe FN303.

48. On information and belief, following the adoption of the aforesaid policies it became the
policy, practice, and usage of Sheriff Glodis and the WCSO, if an inmate refused to
submit to handcuffing through the door of to have a team of Special Operations Group
officers ("move team") extract a recalcitrant inmate from his cell by spraying him with
pepper spray and then shooting him repeatedly with the FN303 at close range to induce
submission to handcuffing.

7
49. At all times pertinent hereto the defendants knew of risks of serious injury or death
associated with kinetic energy weapons, knew there were no standards for safe use of
such weapons because of a lack of data on human tolerance to impacts from blunt force
projectiles, and knew of the risks of penetrating and potentially lethal injuries associated
with close range use of kinetic energy weapons and in particular with use of the FN 303.

50. Move teams fired the FN303 repeatedly at each of the defendants during cell extractions,
notwithstanding that they were confined and unable and not threatening to harm any
person, and each plaintiff except for Mojica was struck by projectiles and injured as a
result.

D. Restraints

51. Notwithstanding that jail regulations purport to ban punitive use of restraints, restricting
their use solely to conditions under which an inmate posed a risk of harm to himself or
others, after being extractions the inmates involved were often placed in restraints
notwithstanding that they posed no such risk.

52. After extractions plaintiffs Campbell, Harju, Guardado, Rodriguez, Raheem, Harris,
Dustin, Moj ica, Vacca and Vargo as punishment and not for the safety of any person.

53. The DOJ report concluded that in 2007 the jail was making "excessive use of restraint."

54. The DOJ report found that "mail staff routinely use restraints after a ... cell extraction.
"

55. The DOJ report fund that between April 2006 and march 2007 the jail staff perfonned
155 cell extractions and used restrain chairs or beds 161 times, in many instances "after
the need for restrained had passed and/or used restraints for excessive periods of time"
and that uses of restraints subsequently dropped after the Department raised concerns on
the matter.

56. The DOJ report stated that nine videotaped cell extractions were randomly selected for
review and that in each case the inmate involved was put into restraints even though
"none of the inmates in the tapes we reviewed appeared to be appropriate candidates for
this highly restrictive measure."

57. The DOJ report stated that a review of twelve incidents where restraints were used during
April of2007, nine of the inmates involved were restrained for from four to 23 hours, in
some cases without consultation with medical or mental health staff.

58. The DOJ report found that a management "failure to adequately review and investigate
incidents contributes to the high number of excessive restraint incidents at the jail."

8
VI. DENIAL OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

59. Plaintiffs were not permitted to seek redress through administrative channels for the
misconduct and resulting injuries complained of herein because they were denied access
to the forms on which administrative grievances by policy were required to be submitted
and/or because inmates who demanded access to grievance fonns were liable to reprisal.

60. The DOJ report found that in 2007 the jail had an "inadequate system for filing
grievances" because, in part, "inmates do not have direct access to grievance forms and
must obtain them from the housing unit captain."

VU. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

61. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, as per
Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.

62. All Plaintiffs represent a class of persons defined as follows: All persons who, now or at
any time in the future, are or will be inmates at the jail.

63. All Plaintiffs represent a class of persons defined as follows: all persons who at any time
on or after February 20,2007, have been or will become the objects of excessive force at
the jail in the form of unjustifiable spraying with OC, refusal of decontamination of the
same, shooting with the FN303 and/or unjustified physical restraints.

64. Plaintiffs Campbell, Harju, Guardado, Paris, Rodriguez, Harris, Dustin, and Mojica
represent a subclass of persons (Subclass A) consisting of all persons who on or after
February 20,2007, were subjected to spraying with OC during cell extractions, or who
become subject to such spraying in the future.

65. Plaintiffs Campbell, Guardado, Rodriguez, and Dustin represent a subclass of persons
(Subclass B) consisting of all persons who on or after February 20,2007, were subjected
to denial of decontamination after being sprayed with OC during cell extractions, or who
become subject to such treatment in the future.

66. All the plaintiffs, but excluding Mojica, represent a subclass of persons (Subclass C)
consisting of all persons who on or after February 20,2007, were subjected to shooting
with the FN303 during extractions, or who become subject to such treatment in the
future.

67. Plaintiffs Campbell, Harju, Guardado, Rodriguez, Raheem, Harris, Dustin, Mojica, Vacca
and Vargo represent a subclass of persons (Subclass D) consisting of all persons who on
or after February 20,2007, were subjected to prone or seated physical restraint after cell
extractions, or who become subject to such treatment in the future.

68. The proposed classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

9
69. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of each of the plaintiff
classes.

70. The claims ofthe named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the class.

71. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs
have no interest that is now or may be potentially antagonistic to the interests of the class.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys employed by and working in cooperation with the
ACLU Foundation of Colorado, which has extensive experience in litigating federal court
class action cases involving federal civil rights claims.

72. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the classes,
thereby making appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief to the class as a whole.

IX. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

73. An actual and immediate controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs
contend that the challenged policies and practices violate their constitutional rights.
Defendants contend that the challenged policies and practices comply with the law.

74. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy.
Without such a declaration, Plaintiffs will be uncertain of their rights and responsibilities
under the law.

75. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. Defendants have enforced and threatened to
continue enforcing the challenged policies and practices against the Plaintiffs. Defendants
have acted and are threatening to act under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury and will continue to suffer
a real and immediate threat of irreparable injury as a result of the existence, operation,
and implementation of the challenged policies and practices. Plaintiffs have no plain,
adequate or speedy remedy at law.

x. CLAIMS

COUNT I
th
Sheriff Guy Glodis and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - 8 Amendment

76. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

77. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis acted under the color of law exercising his
powers and authority as Worcester County Sheriff and chief executive of the WCSO.

10
78. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis lmew of the risks of shooting people at close
range with high powered kinetic energy weapons generally and with the FN303 in
particular, or to the degree that he was ignorant of the same tlns resulted from willful
blindness and deliberate indifference to the likelihood that inmates would sustain serious
injuries as a result of use of the FN 303 in extractions.

79. Notwithstanding that the rationale for "less lethal" kinetic energy weapons is that their
use reduces injury and loss of life in situations where lethal force would be justified,
Sheriff Glodis lmowingly and intentionally authorized, approved, and continued use of
the FN303 on inmates in cell extractions where there was no justification for use of lethal
force.

80. Notwithstanding the lmown risks of severe or lethal harm occasioned by shooting persons
with the FN303 at close range, Sheriff Glodis lmowingly and intentionally adopted,
approved, and continued the use of this weapon and of OC spray in cell extractions as the
instruments of a pain compliance technique employed to induce submission to
handcuffing and/or to punish refusal to submit to same.

81. Sheriff Glodis acted as aforesaid maliciously and/or sadistically with a conscious purpose
to inflict pain and injury as retribution for disobedient or defiant imnate conduct, i.e.,
refusal to cuff up, that was not violent or injurious.

82. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Sheriff Glodis, plaintiffs
suffered and were hanlled as set forth herein and/or are subj ect to such suffering and
harm in the future.

COUNTll
Sheriff Gu.y Glodis - Failure to Train and Su.pervise, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

83. Plaintiff s incorporate each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein

84. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis was responsible for the policies, practices,
usage and customs of the WCRC complained of herein.

85. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis had an obligation and duty to properly train,
supervise, and discipline correctional officers, so as to prevent them from engaging in
conduct with a purpose to inflict pain, harm and corporeal punishment on inmates, in bad
faith, recklessly, maliciously, and/or sadistically.

86. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis lmew that the training and supervision of
correctional officers and the aforesaid policies, regulations, practices and/or customs,
regarding use of OC and ofthe FN303 were improper, insufficient and/or inappropriate to
accomplish his aforesaid obligation and duty.

11
87. Sheriff Glodis was recklessly, callously and deliberately indifferent to the plainly
apparent and imminent risk of unjustifiable injury to inmates, occasioned by the aforesaid
improper, insufficient and/or inappropriate training of correctional staff under his
command.

88. By his actions Sheriff Glodis subjected inmates, to these harms knowingly, intentionally,
willfully, purposely, maliciously and with such reckless disregard of the consequences as
to display a conscious indifference to the danger of harm and injury posed by close range
firing ofthe FN303 at inmates undergoing extraction.

89. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Sheriff Glodis, plaintiffs
suffered and were harmed as set forth herein and/or are subject to such suffering and
hann in the future.

COUNT ill
Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Negligent Failure to Train & Supervise M.G.L. c. 258

90. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

91. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis acted in his capacity as an employee of the
Commonwealth for purposes ofM.G.L. c. 258.

92. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis was responsible for the policies, practices,
usage and customs of the WCRC complained of herein.

93. At all times pertinent hereto Sheriff Glodis had an obligation and duty to properly train,
supervise, and discipline correctional officers so as to prevent undue risk of correctional
officers using excessive force on inmates and thereby hanning them.

94. So negligently and carelessly did Sheriff Glodis discharge his duty to provide proper
training and supervision to correctional officers in the use of force, and in particular
training in use ofthe FN303 and OC, as to directly and proximately cause plaintiffs to be
shot and sprayed with OC as set forth herein.

95. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct by Sheriff Glodis, plaintiffs
suffered and was harmed as set forth herein.

COUNT IV
FNH USA and USC - SOG - Negligent Failure to Train

96. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

97. In accordance with the policy of shooting inmates with the FN303 in extractions, Sheriff

12
 Glodis and the WCSO contracted with FNH USA to purchase FN 303 weapons and
projectiles, and with FNH USA and USC - SOG to provide training and instruction to
WCSO correctional staff in the use and maintenance ofthe weapons.

98. At all times pertinent hereto FNH USA and US C-SOG negligently represented
themselves and their representatives to the WCSO to be knowledgeable be capable of
training, supervising, and/or qualifying correctional officers in the safe use of the FN303.

99. At all times pertinent hereto FNH USA, USC-SOG, their agents, servants and employees,
knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the risks or serious
injury or death associated with shooting people from close range with the FN 303.

100. At all times pertinent hereto FNH USA and USC-SOG, their agents, servants, and
employees, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known the WCSO
intended to use the FN303 for close range shooting of inmates during extractions, and
they sold WCSO weapons, training materials, and/or training services in furtherance of
such use.

101. By failing to warn and instruct WCHC staff about the risk of serious injury arising from
close range shooting of persons with the FN303, FNH USA and USC-SOG proximately
caused the shootings, mistreatment and and injuries of plaintiffs complained of herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor against
each of the defendants and order the following relief;

1. All allowable compensatory damages;

2. All allowable punitive damages;
3. All allowable declaratory relief;
4. All allowable injunctive relief
5. All allowable costs and attorney fees;
6. Joint and several liability of all defendants held to be liable,;
7. Such other relief as the Court may detennine is appropriate

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS JURy TRIAL AS TO ALL ISSUES

13
 ~ ,
B~O:
Hector E. Pineiro, Ss11Jl
Robert A. Scott, BBO# 648740
807 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Tel. (508) 770-0600
Fax (508) 770-1300

DATED: February 22,2010

14