UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1)

ANCIO ROBINSON, as Special

Administrator for the Estate of
DARIUS ROBINSON, deceased,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: CIV-16-970-HE

(2)

BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF
CADDO COUNTY, OKLA.,

(3)

LENNIS MILLER, Sheriff of

Caddo County, Okla. in his official
and individual capacities,

(4)

MICHAEL SMITH, in his

individual capacity,

(5)

VICKI RICHARDSON, in her

individual capacity,

(6)

BRYAN PORTER, in his

individual capacity,

(7)

LAROYCE FANNING, in his

individual capacity,

(8)

RYAN WARREN, in his

individual capacity,

(9)

CITY OF ANADARKO,

(10) CADDO COUNTY

GOVERNMENTAL BUILDING
AUTHORITY,
1

Defendants.

COMPLAINT
ANCIO ROBINSON, as Special Administrator for the Estate of DARIUS ROBINSON,
deceased, (ESTATE) for his claims against the above-named Defendants, would state and
allege as follows:
I. Introduction
This is a legal action resulting from the use of excessive force upon DARIUS
ROBINSON which caused serious personal injury and the subsequent failure to render medical
care which resulted in his death at the Caddo County Detention Center (CCDC). The acts and
omissions described below are the direct and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by
DARIUS ROBINSON that led to his wrongful death on April 4, 2016. This action includes
claims for the deprivation of rights secured by the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, actionable through 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for deprivations of Art. 2 30 of the
Oklahoma Constitution, actionable through Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building
Authority, et al., 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013) and GJA v. Okla. Dept of Human Servs., 347 P.3d
310 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
II.
1.

Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

ANCIO ROBINSON is the court appointed special administrator for the Estate of

DARIUS ROBINSON. He is a resident of California.

2.

The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR CADDO COUNTY,

OKLAHOMA (BOARD) is the legislative entity with non-delegable statutory responsible for
providing a jail facility for Caddo County, Oklahoma that is adequate for the safe-keeping of
2

inmates. See 57 O.S. 41. The BOARD is liable under state law for the actions of county
employees under a theory of respondeat superior consistent with the common law principles set
forth by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Baker v. Saint Francis Hosp., 2005 OK 36, 126 P.3d
602, made applicable to the BOARD here pursuant to the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in
Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013).
3.

LENNIS MILLER (MILLER), is the incumbent Sheriff of Caddo County,

Oklahoma. MILLER is responsible for the operational aspects of the CCDC, and the hiring and
training of the detention staff employed to work at the facility. He is sued in both his official and
individual capacities.
4.

MICHAEL SMITH (SMITH), VICKI RICHARDSON (RICHARDSON) and

BRYAN PORTER (PORTER), are or were employees of Caddo County, Oklahoma working
at the CCDC on April 4, 2016, and at all times were acting under color and authority of state law
and within the scope of their employment.
5.

LAROYCE FANNING (FANNING) and RYAN WARREN (WARREN) are

or were employees of the CITY OF ANADARKO, Oklahoma, working as emergency medical

personnel with the Anadarko emergency medical service. They responded to the CCDC on April
4, 2016 in response to a call for medical treatment regarding DARIUS ROBINSON.
6.

The CADDO COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL BUILDING AUTHORITY

(CCGBA) is the Title 60 public trust that owns the physical plant for the CCDC. The CCGBA
leases the CCDC to the Sheriffs Department and, upon information and belief, the CCGBA has
a non-delegable duty to supervise the entity operating the CCDC to ensure that entity provides
operational policies, procedures, or practices that are adequate for the safe-keeping of inmates.

7.

The events complained of herein occurred at the CCDC in Caddo County,

Oklahoma, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331,
this Court has original jurisdiction with respect to the federal questions set forth herein pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law
claims as set forth herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
III.
8.

Statement of Facts

On March 31, 2016 at approximately 10:10 p.m., DARIUS ROBINSON was

arrested in Oklahoma City on outstanding warrants alleging delinquent child support payments
from Caddo County. He was booked into the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC) at
approximately 10:56 p.m.
9.

On April 1, 2016, DARIUS ROBINSON was medically assessed at the OCDC

and reported a history of withdrawal complications. Medical staff observed the onset of tremors
in ROBINSONs arms and clinically assessed him as requiring medical assessments twice a day
for the next six days to monitor the onset of delirium tremens (DTs). Within a few hours,
ROBINSON was transported from OCDC to Caddo County. ROBINSONs booking sheet from
Caddo County indicates that jailers processed him into the CCDC at approximately 2:11 p.m.
that same day.
10.

After ROBINSON was processed into the CCDC, RICHARDSON determined

that he had the shakes. RICHARDSON also claimed that she believed ROBINSON was
suffering from DTs. Based upon her belief, RICHARDSON claims she moved ROBINSON from
general population to a cell located near the front of the CCDC so he could be watched.

11.

However, upon information and belief, despite her subjective belief that

ROBINSON was suffering from DTs, RICHARDSON did nothing to provide any medical care
responsive to that condition.
12.

Moreover, during this period, jailers were told by the other inmates that:

13.

Robinson was not aware that he was in jail;

Robinson believed that he was wearing someone elses clothing;
Robinson was eating things off the floor; and
Robinson was hallucinating.

At 9:43 p.m. on April 4, 2016, SMITH and RICHARDSON entered

ROBINSONs cell with actual knowledge that he was actively suffering the effects and mental
impairment of DTs. Shortly thereafter, a struggle ensued between SMITH, ROBERTON, and
ROBINSON. SMITH and RICHARDSON gained physical control over ROBINSON when
SMITH placed ROBINSON in a front chokehold. As SMITH held ROBINSON in deadly front
chokehold, RICHARDSON stood in close proximity directing SMITH to choke out
ROBINSON.
14.

Inexplicably, SMITH did as he was directed by RICHARDSON and did in fact

choke ROBINSON, via manual strangulation, until ROBINSON fell unconscious and limp.
15.

While ROBINSON lay limp on his stomach, and while still being choked by

SMITH, RICHARDSON handcuffed ROBINSON. Defendant, BRYAN PORTER then entered

the cell and put his foot on ROBINSONs back. This action is universally condemned and known
to cause positional asphyxia.
16.

On April 4, 2016 at approximately 9:47 p.m., Caddo County emergency 911

received a call from a jailer named Bryan at the CCDC. The caller reported one male down
who was having seizures and not breathing correctly.

17.

EMS records indicate that Defendants FANNING and WARREN reached

ROBINSON at approximately 9:54 p.m. Upon arrival, FANNING and WARREN took no action
to provide medical care and/or treatment to ROBINSON and did not do so for several minutes.
Instead, they noted the following: [w]hen made contact with patient, one of the guards had the
patient handcuffed turned face down with a towel under head and appeared to be holding patient
down. Defendants eventual provision of medical care does not insulate them from liability,
especially in the present situation where a brief delay can produce foreseeable, rapid, and deadly
consequences.
18.

Their records further noted that the guard changed out with another in the same

position, and patient did not appear to be struggling with them at this time.
19.

EMS records of FANNING and WARREN also indicate that jailers had pepper

sprayed ROBINSON, and that they had been provided information that ROBINSON had been
in DTs for the past three days.
20.

When FANNING and WARREN finally attended to ROBINSON, their records

indicate that he was pulseless with a bradycardia rhythm of 35. They claim to have initiated
CPR, but encountered difficulty establishing a proper airway, due to the belief that
ROBINSONs airway was allegedly compromised by secretions, blood and/or vomit.
21.

At approximately 10:00 p.m., records indicate that FANNING and WARREN

made five separate attempts to establish a proper airway using endotracheal intubation where a
tube is placed into the windpipe through the nose or mouth. Records indicate that all of those
efforts were unsuccessful at that time.

22.

FANNING and WARREN left the CCDC at approximately 10:19 p.m.

RICHARDSON accompanied them in the ambulance as they transported ROBINSON to the

hospital. According to records, ROBINSONs care was transferred to the hospital at 10:23 p.m.
23.

Medical providers at the hospital pronounced ROBINSON dead at approximately

10:50 p.m.
24.

A forensic autopsy performed by the Oklahoma Medical Examiner discovered

that ROBINSON had a fractured hyoid and focal hemorrhaging of the neck straps. The Medical
Examiner concluded that ROBINSON died from asphyxiation secondary to manual compression
of the neck, or strangulation.
25.

Hemorrhage of the straps and fracture of the hyoid indicates that SMITH, at the

direction of RICHARDSON, broke ROBINSONs neck when he chocked him out.

26.

There is no indication in the EMS or hospital records that any jailer informed

medical personnel that ROBINSON was subjected to manual strangulation, or that the difficulty
in establishing a proper airway may have been related to a traumatic neck injury.
27.

Neither FANNING and WARREN undertook an examination of ROBINSON

upon arrival at the CCDC to properly apprise themselves of his condition. Upon information and
belief, the failure to properly communicate the mechanism of injury to first responders caused or
contributed to ROBINSONs deteriorating condition and substantially frustrated the ability of
medical personnel to provide adequate care.
28.

ROBINSON sustained the injuries documented by the Medical Examiner from

SMITH, RICHARDSON, and PORTER during one or more use of force events at the CCDC.
The use of force events were captured by the video surveillance system at the facility.

29.

The combined force used by SMITH, RICHARDSON, and PORTER described

above was excessive and disproportionate to the amount of force that was safe or reasonably
necessary under the totality of the circumstances, and resulted either from conduct that violated
policy and training, or alternatively, was the direct and proximate result of a failure to adequately
train, or resulted from written policies or unwritten practices that permitted the improper and
disproportionate use of tactical holds, and/or restraint tools in an unsafe manner, especially in
relation to the accommodation necessary to address the particularized needs of a person suffering
from a mental health condition.
30.

The decision to use this level and type of force on ROBINSON resulted from the

inadequate training provided by MILLER, which was deficient in the following particulars: (1) a
failure to adequately train staff to process and communicate with arrestees with a mental health
condition; and (2) a failure to adequately train staff on the proper use of force. Similarly,
MILLERs failure to implement adequate practices, enforce policies, or provide sufficient
training, was the moving force behind the failure to provide ROBINSON with any medical care
for a life-threatening condition known to RICHARDSON.
31.

Given the nature of operating a jail facility, i.e., knowledge that staff are

authorized and expected to use force, and that a fair number of arrestees exhibit mental health
concerns, or who will experience complications from withdrawal, the need for more or different
training on these particulars is so obvious that MILLERs failure to provide adequate training on
these topics predictably led to the failure to provide medical care and the excessive,
inappropriate, or unsafe use of force on ROBINSON sufficient to result in a constitutional
violation.

32.

Upon information and belief, the CCDC routinely books arrestees who are

suspected to suffering from life-threatening withdrawal symptoms. The practice is sufficiently

routine that future occurrences are highly predictable and plainly obvious. Moreover, upon
information and belief, prior to ROBINSON the CCDC had at least one prior custodial death
attributable to untreated withdrawal symptoms. Despite this knowledge, and the likelihood that
law enforcement would continue to bring persons with such medical conditions to the CCDC,
MILLER either failed or refused to implement a process to provide adequate medical care to
arrestees suspected of experiencing life-threatening withdrawal symptoms, and despite notice of
a custodial death related to the failure to implement such practices, neither BOARD nor the
CCGBA took any steps to ensure that MILLER would not subject future arrestees to the same or
similar practices with deliberate indifference to the consequences.
IV. Statement of Claims
COUNT I
Survival Act
33.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth

34.

Pursuant to 12 O.S. 1051, the decedents right of survival arising from the

herein.

wrongful and intentional conduct by the Defendants is held by ANCIO ROBINSON, the legal
representative of the Estate of DARIUS ROBINSON. Plaintiff, ANCIO ROBINSON demands
all damages recoverable under the Act including substantial damages for funeral and medical
expenses and conscious pain and suffering, as well as any other damages recoverable under the
Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the full and fair amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory and
punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
COUNT II
Wrongful Death
35.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth

36.

Plaintiffs claims are also actionable under the Oklahoma Wrongful Death Act, 12

herein.

O.S. 1053. Such claims are distinguishable from Survival Actions in Oklahoma in accordance
with Boler v. Security Health Care, L.L.C., 336 P.3d 468 (Okla. 2014), 2014 OK 80.
37.

As a direct result of the wrongful and intentional acts of the Defendants, the next

of kin of the decedent is entitled to incurred burial expenses, loss of the pecuniary value of
services expected to be performed by the decedent and other damages recoverable under the Act
including, but not limited to solatium damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the full and fair amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory and
punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
COUNT III
Excessive Force- 42 U.S.C. 1983
38.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 as if fully

set forth herein.

39.

As detailed above, the force used on ROBINSON was excessive, unsafe, and

disproportionate to any need under the totality of the circumstances, and further caused serious
bodily injury to Darius Robinson for which SMITH, RICHARDSON, and PORTER are liable
10

under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, actionable
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the full and fair amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory and
punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
COUNT IV
Excessive Force- Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sec. 30
40.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 as if fully

set forth herein.

41.

SMITH, RICHARDSON and PORTER used force against ROBINSON that

exceeded the amount permitted by Art. 2 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 22 O.S. 34.1.
Consequently, BOARD is liable to the ESTATE for excessive force for the actions of SMITH,
RICHARDSON, and/or PORTER under the Oklahoma Constitution actionable through Bosh v.
Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority, 305 P.3d 994 (Okla. 2013).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
in the full and fair amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory and
punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
COUNT V
Inadequate Training and Supervision Amounting to
Deliberate Indifference 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Defendants Miller, Board, & CCGBA)
42.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by referenced paragraphs 1-32 as if fully

set forth herein.

11

43.

At all times relevant herein, Defendants SMITH, RICHARDSON and PORTER

were acting under the direction and control, and pursuant to the rules, regulations, policies and
procedures of, direction of, acts and omissions of Defendants MILLER, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, and/or the CCGBA.
44.

Decedent DARIUS ROBINSON was wrongfully, unlawfully and unnecessarily

choked and strangled to death at the facility operated by Defendants MILLER, BOARD, and/or
the CCGBA as a direct result of the policies and procedures in place at that facility.
45.

Defendants MILLER, BOARD, and CCGBA operated or allowed the CCDC to

operate with little or no regard for the safety and well-being of the individuals housed in the
facility and demonstrated such deliberate indifference to their plight that it is actionable under
the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against these Defendants jointly and
severally in the full and fair amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory
damages, punitive damages to the extent allowed by applicable law, plus interest and costs.
COUNT VI
Failure to Render Adequate Medical Care
(Defendants Fanning and Warren)
46.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -32 as if fully

set forth herein.

47.

Upon responding to the CCDC, Defendants FANNING and WARREN had an

obligation to provide adequate care and treatment to DARIUS ROBINSON, and upon their
arrival at the CCDC, FANNING and WARREN had actual knowledge that DARIUS
ROBINSON was suffering from an objectively serious medical condition, and despite that
knowledge, and with indifference to the consequences, FANNING and WARREN either did
12

nothing to respond to the emergent medical condition confronting them, or their actions were
such a departure from what constitutes an adequate response that their conduct exhibited
indifference to the circumstances confronting them.
48.

The failure of Defendants FANNING and WARREN to provide adequate medical

care to DARIUS ROBINSON for several minutes-- even though they responded to the CCDC for
the purpose of rendering care and treatment to DARIUS ROBINSONeither prolonged his
suffering or caused his condition to worse, for which FANNING and WARREN are liable.
49.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and

severally, in the full and fair amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in compensatory
and punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
COUNT VII
Failure to Render Adequate Medical Care
(Defendant City of Anadarko)
50.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -32 as if fully

set forth herein.

51.

At all times relevant herein, Defendants Fanning and Warren were acting under

the direction and control, and pursuant to the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of, and
at the direction of Defendant CITY OF ANADARKO.
52.

Defendant CITY OF ANADARKO had a constitutional obligation to provide

adequate medical treatment to individuals it treated at the CCDC, given that those held in
custody had no ability to seek medical care and/or treatment themselves or arrange to have such
treatment provided.

13

53.

The failure of Defendant CITY OF ANADARKO to provide medical care and

treatment to Darius Robinson after he suffered serious bodily injuries at the CCDC amounted to
deliberate indifference.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against this Defendant in the full and fair
amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, punitive damages to
the extent allowed by law, plus interest and costs.
COUNT VIII
Unconstitutional Polices, Practices, Procedures to Withhold Medical Care
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Defendants Miller)
54.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -32 as if fully

set forth herein.

55.

Defendants MILLER had a constitutional obligation to develop polices,

procedures, or practices to provide adequate medical treatment to individuals that held at the
CCDC, given that those held in custody have no ability to seek medical care and/or treatment
themselves or arrange to have such treatment provided.
56.

The failure of Defendants MILLER to implement or enforce such policies or

practices amounted to deliberated indifference and represent the moving force behind the injuries
suffered by the ESTATE.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against this Defendants in the full and fair
amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, punitive damages to
the extent allowed by law, plus interest and costs.

14

COUNT IX
Unconstitutional Polices, Practices, Procedures
Declaratory Judgment
42 U.S.C. 1983 (Defendants Miller, Board, CCGBA)

57.

Plaintiff hereby adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -32 as if fully

set forth herein.

58.

The BOARD, CCGBA, and MILLER have staffed the CCDC with individuals

who are poorly trained and ill-equipped to interact with individuals housed in that facility. A
constitutional violation is a highly predictable and plainly obvious consequence of the manner in
which BOARD, the CCGBA, and MILLER all the CCDC to operate, to include the use of
choke-holds by untrained jailers, and the failure to provide timely medical care to persons
suspected of experiencing life-threatening medical conditions.
59.

The failure of BOARD, CCGBA, and MILLER to properly train jail staff in use

of force techniques resulted in jail staff using an extraordinary dangerous guillotine-hold on

ROBINSON, and the failure to implement this training prior to allowing jailers to use chokeholds on inmates exhibits deliberate indifference to the consequences and created an
environment at the CCDC where the safety of the individuals housed in that facility were at risk.
60.

Similarly, the failure of BOARD, CCGBA, and MILLER to implement or enforce

practices to provide timely medical care to persons experiencing life-threatening withdrawal

symptoms, or alternatively, to require withdrawal symptoms to deteriorate before providing
medical care, necessarily resulted in ROBINSONs deteriorating condition which exposed him to
much greater harm, including the use of force and deadly guillotine hold.

15

61.

The situation that exists at the CCDC violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and has caused people housed in the facility to suffer serious bodily
injury and in the case of DARIUS ROBINSON, death.
62.

These practices are applied to pretrial detainees like DARIUS ROBINSON, an

inherently transitory population as recognized in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), that
make the practice capable of repetition, while evading review, sufficient for standing to seek
prospective relief.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands declaratory judgment from the Court that:
a)

the practice that allowed jailers to use a front-choke hold on DARIUS

ROBINSON is unconstitutional;

b)

the practice that allowed jailers to deny or delay adequate medical care to
DARIUS ROBINSON is unconstitutional;

c)

prospectively, BOARD, CCGBA, and MILLER shall implement or

require training for those employed at the CCDC that meets minimum
constitutional standards regarding the (i) use of force choke holds; (ii)
positional asphyxia; and (iii) timely provision of adequate medical care for
arrestees experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all claims so triable.

16

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Malik Z. Shabazz/s/
Malik Z. Shabazz, Esq. (458434DC)
B.L.F.J.
6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 402
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Email: attorney.shabazz@yahoo.com
Phone:
(301) 513-5445
Facsimile:
(301) 513-4447
(Pro Hac Vice pending)
/s/J. Spencer Bryan/s/
J. Spencer Bryan, Esq., OBA No. 19419
Bryant & Terrill Law, PLLC
9 East 4th Street, Suite 307
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Email: jsbryan@bryanterrill.com
Phone:
(918) 935-2777
Facsimile:
(918) 935-2778
/s/ Gregory L. Lattimer/s/
Gregory L. Lattimer, Esq. (371926 DC)
1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20005
Counsel for the plaintiff
Email: lattlaw@aol.com
Phone:
(202) 638-0095
Facsimile:
(866) 764-6442
(Pro Hac Vice pending)

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

17