Lawsuit Against Former Jailer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
TRAVIS BELLEW, on behalf of himself )

and all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. ______________________
) CLASS ACTION
SULLIVAN COUNTY, Tennessee, )
a governmental entity, )
)
JEFF CASSIDY, Sullivan County Sheriff, )
)
LEE CARSWELL, Captain of the Sullivan )
County Sheriff’s Office, )
)
CHRISTOPHER SABO, Corrections Officer, )
)
JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, employees of )
the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office, )
)
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Comes now the Plaintiff, Travis Bellew (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Bellew”), by and
through counsel, and for his Complaint against the Defendants, Sullivan County,
Sheriff Jeff Cassidy, Captain Lee Carswell, Officer Christopher Sabo, and John and
Jane Does 1-10, would respectfully state as follows:

I. NATURE OF ACTION
1. On October 29, 2018, as Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sullivan County Jail
(“Jail”), was being moved to a cell by Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office (“SCSO”)
Corrections Officer Christopher Sabo (“Officer Sabo”), Officer Sabo, without warning
or provocation, violently knocked Plaintiff down to the floor and into a closet (and out
of camera view), where Plaintiff’s head struck a mop bucket. Officer Sabo then
proceeded to beat Plaintiff about the head and body with his closed fists. Officer Sabo
was terminated three days later and subsequently pled guilty to assault.
Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 1

2. Officer Sabo’s conduct, though criminal and deplorable in its own right,
was largely the product of the violent culture created by decrepit Jail conditions –
including severe overcrowding and understaffing, untrained officers, the absence of
any inmate classification system to separate violent inmates from non-violent
inmates, and a poorly-designed and unsafe Jail – which combine to cause corrections
officers to unreasonably react violently to inmates, even when presented with no real
threat.
3. The Jail is broken in nearly every way. Not only do Defendants Sullivan
County, Jeff Cassidy, Sullivan County Sheriff, and Lee Carswell, Captain of the
SCSO, knowingly expose inmates to severely overcrowded conditions of confinement,
providing inadequately trained or untrained corrections officers and inadequate
security to inmates, they have also exposed inmates, including Plaintiff, to
substantial, unreasonable, and life-threatening risks of harm.
4. The Jail is chronically and severely overcrowded, with inmates
triple-bunking, lying on top of each other, and sleeping on floors under bunks, some
with their heads resting near toilets. The Jail is also alarmingly understaffed, with
two officers often watching around 300 inmates, further heightening the risk for
altercations. Making things even worse, Jail officials state that there is no way for
them to classify inmates – to separate “predator from prey” – and therefore, they
make no meaningful effort to separate violent and non-violent offenders. Topping off
this “lethal cocktail,” as one Jail official describes the conditions, the Jail’s design
itself causes serious safety issues for inmates and corrections officers, with blind
spots (like closets where mop buckets are stored), maze-like hallways, and cameras
that can be easily covered, among other problems. These physical limitations,
especially when combined with the severe understaffing and overcrowding, create an
unreasonable threat of harm to everyone’s safety, including staff and inmates.
-2-

5. Although these conditions almost resulted in the Jail losing its state
certification in 2014, they still have not improved. In fact, as Sheriff Cassidy recently
warned the Sullivan County Commission, living conditions at the Jail are violating
the constitutional rights of inmates. Indeed, the Jail conditions, variously
characterized as “decrepit,” a “lethal cocktail,” and a “critical mass” situation by
which Sullivan County officials and Jail administrators, have perpetuated a “mob
mentality” among inmates, resulting in “around 30 inmate-on-inmate assaults each
month.” In July 2018, there were nine assaults in one night. The number of
corrections officers assaulted by inmates varies. Sometimes, there are none, and
sometimes there are a couple in a week.
6. In short, Sullivan County has adopted a widespread policy, practice, or
custom of deliberate indifference to these dangerous and deplorable conditions, i.e.,
overcrowding, inadequate staffing, lack of security, and other safety-related
deficiencies, which has led to rising violence and a rising number of assaults, and
ultimately, to Plaintiff’s own injuries. Even worse, these conditions, which Sullivan
County has inexplicably allowed to fester and devolve, have combined to create a
culture of violence and insecurity at the Jail, among inmates and staff alike.
Improperly trained corrections officers – under the substantial stress that comes with
working long hours for little pay at an unsafe Jail – routinely fear for their own
safety, prompting them to be on “pins and needles” during their shifts and generating
unreasonably violent reactions to inmates, even when not threatened.
7. According to incident reports, from October 2018 to December 2018, just
two months, there were 116 assaults at the Jail. Violence at the Jail is not an
anomaly; it is a way of life. Forcing inmates to live under ongoing threats of serious
bodily injury is cruel and inhumane, especially when Sullivan County has the ability
to prevent and reduce such violence.
-3-

8. The failure to protect inmates from violence is particularly egregious
given that Sullivan County officials have been aware of the problem and their causes
for years, yet have failed to take the necessary actions to ameliorate the
unconstitutional and illegal conditions. The deliberate indifference to inmate safety
is unconscionable, and must be stopped to prevent additional unnecessary injury,
loss of life, pain, and suffering.
9. By this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for himself under
federal civil rights laws and Tennessee common and statutory law for the acts and/or
omissions of each Defendants leading up to the assault by Officer Christopher Sabo.
Plaintiff, for himself and all others similarly situated as to Counts Three (failure to
train and supervise) and Four (policy of condoning unsafe jail conditions), also seeks
to recover damages for exposure to the dangerous, overcrowded, and unconstitutional
conditions in the Jail and to alleviate those conditions.
10. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the United
States and Tennessee constitutions against Sullivan County for its deliberate
indifference to the exceedingly high levels of inmate-violence in the Jail. The causes
of the violence – understaffing, overcrowded cells, lack of training and adequate
policies and procedures, antiquated and poorly designed Jail facilities, and a non-
existent inmate classification system – are well-known to and tolerated by Sullivan
County. Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that Sullivan County is violating federal
and state law and an injunction compelling Sullivan County to provide inmates with
adequate protection from violence from corrections officers and other inmates.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
1343 over Plaintiff’s claims arising under the Constitution of the United States and
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-4-

12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claims brought under
Tennessee law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as such claims are so related to claims
in the action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
13. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Northeastern Division, at Greeneville, because a substantial part of the
events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Sullivan County, Tennessee.
III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
14. The Plaintiff, Travis Bellew, is a citizen of Sullivan County, currently
residing at 2525 Bloomingdale Road, Kingsport, Tennessee.
B. Defendants
15. The Defendant, Sullivan County, Tennessee, (“Sullivan County”), is a
governmental entity and political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. It may be
served through its chief executive officer, County Mayor, Richard Venable, at
Sullivan County Courthouse, 3411 Highway 126, Suite 206, Blountville, TN 37617.
16. Sullivan County was responsible for the creation of the SCSO, which,
among other things, must:
(a) train and certify its law enforcement employees;
(b) implement procedures and protocol to adhere to the Due

Process Rights of citizens with whom its enforcement and
jail employees interact; and
(c) Build, maintain, and fund a safe and adequate jail.
17. Sullivan County and the SCSO are answerable for the safekeeping of
inmates in their custody and are also responsible for the management and control of
the Jail facilities and for all matters relating to the selection, supervision, promotion,
training, and discipline of uniformed staff, including supervisory staff, of the Jail.
-5-

Sullivan County owns the Jail, located at 140 Blountville Bypass, Blountville,
Tennessee.
18. The Jail was constructed and commenced operations in or about 1986.
The facility houses both male and female inmates, pre-detention, and post-sentencing
inmates, with an annual operating budget of nearly $10,000,000.00.
19. At all times material herein, Sullivan County and the SCSO possessed
the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, regulations, and
practices affecting all facets of the training, supervision, control, employment,
assignment and removal of individual members of the SCSO, including those
individuals charged with protecting the health and safety of inmates at the Jail, and
to assure that said actions, policies, rules, regulations, practices, and procedure of the
SCSO and its employees and agents comply with the laws and constitutions of the
United States and the State of Tennessee.
20. Defendant, Jeff Cassidy (“Sheriff Cassidy”), is, based upon information
and belief, a citizen and resident of Sullivan County and may be served at 140
Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material hereto,
Sheriff Cassidy was the duly elected Sheriff of Sullivan County, Tennessee. Sheriff
Cassidy is sued herein in his individual capacity and as principal on his official bond.
Sheriff Cassidy was operating under color of law.
21. The Jail is operated by the SCSO. The Sheriff has a statutory duty to
take charge and custody of the Jail and inmates housed therein, Tenn. Code Ann. §
41-4-101, and may appoint jailers, for whose actions he is civilly liable. Tenn. Code
Ann. § 41-4-101.
22. At all times material hereto, Sheriff Cassidy was statutorily responsible
for the operation of the Jail; for the screening, hiring, firing, training and the
supervision of the jailers, deputies, corrections officers and other jail personnel; and
-6-

responsible for the safety and welfare of those housed in the Jail. Tenn. Code. Ann. §
41-4-101.
23. Sullivan County and the SCSO acted through their agents, employees,
and servants, including policymakers, and through Sheriff Cassidy.
24. At all times mentioned herein, Sheriff Cassidy was an employee, agent,
and/or servant of Sullivan County, acting within the course and scope of said
employment, agency and/or service, and possessed the power and authority and was
charged by law with the responsibility to enact policies and prescribe rules and
practices concerning the operation of the Jail and concerning the means by which the
lives and safety of inmates were to be secured.
25. Defendant, Lee Carswell (“Captain Carswell”) is, based upon
information and belief, a citizen and resident of Sullivan County and may be served
at 140 Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material
hereto, Captain Carswell was a Captain and Jail Administrator employed by the
SCSO. Captain Carswell is designated to operate the Jail facility on a day-to-day
basis. Captain Carswell is sued herein in his individual capacity and as principal on
his official bond. Captain Carswell was operating under color of law.
26. Defendant, Christopher Sabo (“Officer Sabo”), is, based upon
information and belief, a citizen and resident of Sullivan County and may be served
at 140 Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material
hereto, Corrections Officer Sabo was a Corrections Officer employed by the SCSO.
Officer Sabo is sued herein in his individual capacity and as principal on his official
bond. Officer Sabo was operating under color of law.
27. Plaintiff also sues Defendant Does 1-10 because their true names and/or
capacities and/or other facts showing their culpability are presently unknown to
Plaintiff. These Defendants are sued in their individual capacities as SCSO
-7-

supervisors, administrators, deputies, or corrections officers, and as principals on
their official bonds.1
28. Defendant Does 1-10 are unknown officers or staff of the SCSO, a sub-
division of Sullivan County, who failed to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff
during his incarceration on October 29, 2018 against the unlawful conduct alleged
herein. They are also unknown participants who bear responsibility for the unsafe
condition of the Jail. They are also sued in their individual capacities. Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at all times relevant herein, certain
of the Doe Defendants were supervisors and policy makers for Sullivan County.
C. Co-conspirators or other participants
29. Various persons or entities not made Defendants in this lawsuit,
including but not limited to Sullivan County officials, commissioners, or SCSO
employees, have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants in the violations
asserted in this Complaint and have performed acts and made statements in
furtherance thereof. Plaintiff reserves the right to name some or all of these persons
as Defendants at a later date. There is a finite number of co-conspirators and
Plaintiff believes that their identities may be ascertained through Defendants’ own
records.2
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Plaintiff is Knocked Down and Beaten by Officer Sabo
30. In October 2018, a fugitive from justice (“FFJ”) charge was filed against
Plaintiff in Sullivan County, Tennessee. Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated in
the Jail.
1
Under Rules 4(m) and 15© of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
will seek leave of this Court to amend his Complaint to set forth the true names and
capacities of such Defendants when their identities are ascertained.
-8-

31. On October 29, 2018, Plaintiff was placed in an “old visitation cell,”
purportedly because he had become aggressive towards a corrections officer.
32. On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff was being escorted back to his original
cell by Officer Sabo. As Plaintiff turned his head away from Officer Sabo, suddenly,
and without warning or provocation, Officer Sabo violently pushed or knocked
Plaintiff down to the floor and inside a closet – just out view of Jail security cameras.
Before landing on the floor, Plaintiff’s head struck a mop bucket that had been stored
in the closet, causing injury to his left eye.
33. Although Plaintiff had been, and continued to be, fully compliant at this
time, while forcibly detaining Plaintiff in the off-camera closet, Officer Sabo violently
struck the already-injured Plaintiff with his closed fist between six to eight times
about the face and body.
34. Plaintiff was transported to the Jail’s medical unit, where he was
eventually cleared to return to his cell.
35. By January 2019, Plaintiff was suffering excruciating pain in his lower
back, caused by being knocked down by Officer Sabo and by the vicious beating he
suffered at Officer Sabo’s hands, forcing Plaintiff to go to the hospital emergency
room on multiple occasions.
36. On or about November 1, 2018, Officer Sabo was terminated from his
position at the SCSO for his treatment of Plaintiff, including his use of gratuitous,
unnecessary, and excessive force on Plaintiff.
37. On November 14, 2018, Detective Justin Bush was assigned as the
special investigator regarding Officer Sabo’s assault on Plaintiff. Following Det.
Bush’s investigation of the incident, Officer Sabo was charged with a Simple Assault,
violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101, and was ultimately arrested on the
aforementioned charges on November 20, 2019 (see attached Exhibit 1 and 2).
-9-

38. On January 15, 2019, Officer Sabo pled guilty to assault in Sullivan
County General Sessions Court, Bristol Division, Case No. RR42970 (see attached
Exhibit 3). Officer Sabo’s charges were deferred for 11 months, 29 days on the
condition that he perform fifty (50) hours of community service, be on supervised
probation, pay court costs in the amount of $363.50, maintain good behavior, stay
away and have no contact with Plaintiff.
39. As a result of the assault on October 29, 2018, Plaintiff sustained injuries
to his left eye, lower back (with left-sided sciatica), hip, and leg. Plaintiff also endured
tremendous pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and emotional
injury and distress.
B. Overview of Conditions at the Sulivan County Jail: “This is the

worst lethal cocktail we could possibly imagine.”2
1. Sullivan County Jail overcrowding: the most

severe in East Tennessee
40. Sullivan County has created and maintains a jail environment in which
inmates face a substantial risk of being harmed by violence from corrections officers or
other inmates. Defendants have been aware of these risks since at least 2014, when
Sullivan County almost lost its state certification due to severe overcrowding and other
deficiencies.
41. The Sullivan County Jail is 35 years old.3 The main Jail has been
overcrowded almost since it opened in 1987. In 1999, 150 beds were added, and a
separate building, called the “extension,” opened in 2006 to house 240 inmates. The
combined capacity of both facilities is 619, which is regularly exceeded by nearly 400
2
Quoting Brian Dillard, Jail Operations Cpt., discussing conditions at
Sullivan County Jail.
3
Many of the allegations within this section of the Complaint are extracted
from reported interviews of Sullivan County officials, SCSO officials, Jail
employees, or former corrections officers.
-10-

inmates. The average combined inmate population is now more than 1,000. Data from
the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) makes it clear that no other county
jail in the region is seeing such severe overcrowding.
42. The Jail has been under scrutiny by the Tennessee Corrections Institute
(“TCI”)4 for at least four years, almost losing its certification in 2014 due to severe
overcrowding and other deficiencies found during an inspection by the TCI. While the
Jail remains “certified,” it is under a “plan of action” status.5 requiring Sullivan County
to adopt a remedial plan to relieve the overcrowding problem. The Sheriff issued a
statement indicating that “[w]hile the TCI Board of Control did recertify the facility, the
jail will remain under the current plan of action . . . . Failure to provide a plan to resolve
overcrowding issues will ultimately result in the loss of certification.”
43. By November 2017, District Attorney General Barry Staubus called the
situation “critical,” while Criminal Court Judge James Goodwin described the problem
as having reached a “critical mass.” County Commissioners know about the problem.
Commissioner John Gardner said he realizes they need a quick solution, and that “[t]he
worst thing we can do is nothing.” In fact, years after TCI almost decertified the Jail,
Sheriff Cassidy recently warned County Commission that the living conditions at the
Jail are violating the constitutional rights of inmates.
44. According to SCSO Capt. Melissa Copas, “[s]omething has to happen fast.”
Copas recently stated that “[w]e have cells that are designed to hold 12 inmates and we
4
Under the authority of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-4-140, the TCI is required to
establish minimum standards for adult local jails, lock-ups, workhouses and
detention facilities in the state. The TCI’s Board of Control establishes the
standards to inspect and certify local correctional facilities. Inspections and
re-inspections are conducted within the mandated time-frame to ensure compliance
of all standards for the purpose of certification.
5
Under “plan of action” status, county officials must show TCI progress
toward solving the problem.
-11-

have 30 people in those cells right now. . . . If we have any altercations, disciplinary, or
medical problems we have no way to segregate these inmates.”
45. Because there aren’t enough bunks, many inmates sleep on mats on the
floor or on plastic, makeshift beds with thin mattresses known as “boats.” Their heads
rest next to toilets. Some inmates say that they don’t even get a mat to sleep on. “You’re
not just double-bunking – you’re triple-bunking in some circumstances,” Dillard said.
Plaintiff routinely was housed in a 16-person cell with at least 33 other inmates, and
slept on the floor. After he was beaten by Officer Sabo, he was forced to place his bed
adjacent to the toilet.6
46. “You’re seeing people lying on the floor, people on top of each other,” said
Michael Cole, an administrative sergeant at the Jail. The population continues to rise,
with cells holding triple their capacity.
47. According to Brian Dillard, Jail Operations Captain,“[t]his is the worst
lethal cocktail we could possibly imagine,” continuing, “I’ve worked in Los Angeles, and
I’ve seen a lot of facilities across the country, and I’ll be honest with you – I’ve not seen
anything this decrepit. . . .”
2. The Jail’s Physical Structure Is Inadequate,

Which Makes It More Difficult for Staff to Safely
Monitor Inmates and Increases the Risk of
Violence.
48. Cells vary in size and shape. Some are large rooms behind one door with
a small window. Officers can open the door, but there’s no way to get a good look inside,
and the window can easily be blocked by inmates. The others look like traditional cells
– steel bars that inmates can stick their limbs through.
49. Most cells are designed to hold 16-28 inmates, though it’s common for
30-40, and sometimes 50, to be housed in a single cell. If an officer has to go into the cell,
6
Many inmates, including Mr. Bellew, were not fed, due to the number of
inmates and the lack of guards available to police such a group.
-12-

they can be ambushed by all of the inmates because there’s no way to separate them in
small groups behind more than one door.
50. In the heat of summer, the HVAC units continually break down. Large fans
are used to try to keep inmates somewhat cool. Mold can be seen growing in cells.
51. The main Jail also serves as a mental health unit and nursing home, of
sorts, but without the usual accommodations of either. According to one report, one unit
had to be converted into what Carswell likened to a nursing home because inmates with
walkers, wheelchairs, prosthetics and oxygen are incarcerated there. There are people
with serious mental illnesses, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease behind bars.
52. That same report noted that smaller segregation cells, known as “tanks,”
are meant for three uses: to discipline inmates by keeping them out of the general
population; to separate those who come in under the influence; or to serve as suicide
watch cells – where those who may take their lives are stripped nearly naked for their
own safety. But there aren’t enough tanks. Carswell said there should be 150-170
segregation cells to adequately serve the needs of the average jail population, but there
are only about 20 between the two facilities.
53. The Jail’s linear design causes serious safety issues for inmates and
corrections officers. The design of the jail proved challenging for White and his fellow
officers. “If something happens all the way at the very end in Alpha cell [at the end of
the hall], by the time we get there, it’s already done, so we don’t know what happened,”
former Corrections Officer Hunter White White said. “The only thing we know is if we
see it on camera. We can’t hear what’s going on all the way down there unless we’re
walking by. If we’re going that way [and] we hear something, then maybe we can catch
it, but if not, then it’s already done and over with.”
54. When the main Jail was built, the linear design was already decreasing in
favor of pod systems, which allow more inmate control. Typically, two inmates are
-13-

housed in each cell rather than dozens in large dormitory-style cells, according to Chief
Jail Administrator Carswell.
55. The current design results in blind spots and maze-like hallways. There are
cameras in each cell, though inmates can cover them, and in the halls, but only a few
officers monitor the cameras – one at the main Jail and two at the extension.
56. There’s still a risk when other officers are there because the inmates,
according to Capt. Copas, have become more violent overall. “They’re younger. They
really just don’t care,” Copas said. “They’d slap their mama quicker than they would
slap me. They just have no respect. So, it’s a whole different environment and the drugs
are different, too, especially from when I started.”
57. At the extension, there is no outdoor security perimeter. “We’ve requested
security fence,” Copas said. “It’s dangerous. … We’ve had them dig out before.” The
extension was built to be a “workhouse,” meaning it was supposed to house sentenced,
minimum-security inmates, but due to overcrowding, that isn’t always the case.
58. These physical limitations, especially when combined with the severe
understaffing and overcrowding in the Jail, create an unreasonable threat of harm to
the safety and security of staff, visitors, volunteers, and prisoners.
3. Safety issues from the beginning: “[T]here is no

way to classify inmates – to separate “predator
from prey.”7
59. Sullican County also fails to adequately classify and assign inmates to cells
where they will be safe from injury and violence.
60. “Our inmate population is violent – most of them,” Cassidy said. Still, Jail
officials say there is no way to classify inmates – to separate “predator from prey,” as
Dillard put it, and that’s been the case for years. “We’ve got everything that any prison
7
-14-

would have, too, as far as a violent act,” Carswell said. “The inability to separate like we
should is becoming a big challenge for me. We had 116 assaults from October to
December [2018] in our county jail, and that’s broke bones, that’s head injuries … and
mainly it’s because of the current design of the jail . . . . It’s a long, linear design that
you don’t see a lot of jails designed the way ours is.”
4. Understaffing Creates an Environment in Which

Violence Flourishes.
61. The Jail is staffed in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk of
inmates being assaulted. For the past few years the Jail has routinely housed more than
1,000 prisoners (with a capacity for 619). Defendants Cassidy and Carswell generally
staff the Jail with, on average, 19 officers per shift. A significant number of officers are
required to staff areas of the Jail other than the cells, like the booking area, visitor-
processing areas, and kitchen. Thus, usually no more than a handful of officers are
responsible for directly supervising the inmates in the jail.
62. The minimum staffing plan utilized by the SCSO does not provide for a
sufficient number of officers to safely operate the Jail. It appears that the staffing
provided is based on the rated capacity of the Jail, not on how many inmates are
actually in custody.
63. Typically, corrections officers work 12-hour shifts. Because of the
insufficient staff, Defendants often utilize a system of mandatory overtime, whereby
staff are required to work additional hours before or after their 12-hour shifts to cover
a vacancy preceding or following their shift. This dangerous practice may result in staff
being exhausted, unfocused, and unable to properly handle the duties required of them.
Moreover, even when mandatory overtime is used, the extra hours of coverage on either
end of the preceding or following 12-hour shift leaves a gap uncovered in the middle of
the shift. The staffing at the Jail is not adequate to keep inmates safe.
-15-

64. To monitor inmates, spot contraband or stop fights, officers have to walk
the halls, but there aren’t enough on each shift to regularly or safely do that. Even when
an officer witnesses a fight, they have to wait for backup before entering the cells, or risk
getting hurt.
65. Carswell, Cassidy, Dillard and Copas agree that there aren’t enough
corrections officers and medical staff to handle the number of inmates.
5. A “culture of insecurity” among inmates and

Corrections Officers: “I have no idea how they
wake up in the morning, make the decision to
come in here and take the abuse they have to for
the money they make and complete that job.”8
66. There are around 30 inmate-on-inmate assaults each month, according to
Carswell. On some nights and weekends, several occur. In July 2018, Dillard said there
were nine assaults in one night. The number of corrections officers assaulted by inmates
varies. Sometimes, there are none, and sometimes there are a couple in a week, Cassidy
said.
67. Many officers, says Administrative Sergeant Cole, are concerned about
their safety. After all, it’s not uncommon to have two officers watching around 300
inmates, heightening the risk for altercations and subsequent lawsuits.
68. Former Corrections Officer Hunter White, who worked at the jail for about
a year, told a reporter that his job was “rough” some of the time. “You’ve got a lot of
them that will just ask you questions and try to cause problems, and most of the time
they know they’re here, what they’re on and so on – they know how much time they’ve
got, and they don’t want to screw that up,” he said. “And then you’ve got the ones that
like to start trouble. It makes your shift extra long.”
8
-16-

69. A lot of paperwork and consistently checking on inmates who have
threatened to kill themselves every 15-30 minutes also adds to the stress, White said.
Typically, he worked with one other officer on each 12-hour shift, responsible for
hundreds of inmates. “It’s a struggle because of where there’s so many,” White said. “We
have two cells that have 41 people. So, we have a total of about 317 people up here for
just two officers.”
70. Talking about corrections officers, Cpt. Dillard said, “I have no idea how
they wake up in the morning, make the decision to come in here and take the abuse they
have to for the money they make and complete that job.”
71. The mother of two corrections officers who work in the jail, pleaded with
the County Commission twice earlier this year for more officers. “The jail is an
incredibly dangerous environment,” she said. “I worry when my kids walk out the door
every single day whether they’re going to come home safely or not. I’ve been called in the
middle of the night for a child that’s been in the emergency room. I’ve had a child that
got hurt in the middle of the night anrefused to leave until the next morning because he
couldn’t leave his shift short-staffed.”
V. WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
72. Sullivan County has waived immunity for negligence of employees and
misconduct of officers or deputies acting under color of law, as set out in Tenn. Code
Ann. §29-20-305, and for intentional acts or misconduct done by officers, deputies, or
employees under color of law, as set out in Tenn. Code Ann. §8-8-302.
73. There is no immunity for individuals for criminal conduct, or conduct which
is willful or malicious.
-17-

VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
74. Plaintiff brings each of the claims in this Complaint individually against
the Defendants. Counts Three and Four of this Complaint – alleging that by failing to
adequately train and supervise corrections officers and creating a culture of insecurity
by condoning deplorable jail conditions, Sullivan County subjects inmates to a
substantial risk of harm and injury from violence – are also brought as a class action
under Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
75. Class Definition. Plaintiff proposes the following Inmate Class, subject
to modification by the Court as required:

All adult men and women who, since 2014, were, are now, or
will be in the future, incarcerated in Sullivan County Jail. All
inmates incarcerated in the Jail are at substantial risk of
serious harm due to the lack of adequate training and
supervision and the policies and practices of Sullivan County,
including lack of protection from injury and violence.
76. Numerosity: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The proposed class as defined is
sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable and
unfeasible. Currently, upon information and belief, there are nearly 1000 inmates in the
Jail, as well as thousands of individuals in the community on probation, mandatory
supervision, home confinement, or other post-release supervision, all of whom are
subject to being returned to the Jail at any time on an alleged violation or revocation of
their supervision or to participate in civil or criminal court proceedings. Due to Sullivan
County's failure to adequately train and supervise corrections officers and the culture
of insecurity that has resulted from the long-standing deplorable jail conditions, all
prisoners in Sullivan County Jail are at risk of being harmed by violence.
77. Class members are identifiable using records maintained in the ordinary
course of business by Defendants.
-18-

78. Commonality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). There are questions of law and
fact common to the Class, including, but not limited to whether Sullivan County's failure
to train and supervise corrections officers, deplorable jail conditions, and failure to
protect inmates from violence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Tennessee Constitution.
79. Typicality: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The claims of the named Plaintiff is
typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class. Plaintiff and all other
members of the class have sustained similar injuries arising out of and caused by
Sullivan County's common course of conduct and policies in violation of the law as
alleged herein.
80. Adequacy: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is a member of the Class and
will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of putative Class members
because he has no disabling conflict(s) of interest that would be antagonistic to those of
the other Class members. Plaintiff and Class members seek to enjoin the unlawful acts
and omissions of Sullivan County. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are competent and
experienced in complex class action litigation and civil rights litigation.
81. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) and (B). Since the number of Class members
is more than 900, separate actions by individuals could result in inconsistent and
varying decisions, which in turn would result in conflicting and incompatible standards
of conduct for Sullivan County.
82. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). This action is also maintainable as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because Sullivan County has acted
and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so that final injunctive
relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class and will
apply to all members of the class.
-19-

83. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). There are common questions of law and fact that
predominate over any questions affecting only the individual members of the Class. The
wrongs alleged against Sullivan County are common to each and every member of the
putative Class. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Sullivan County to
comply with federal law. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the
prosecution of separate claims against Sullivan County is small. Management of these
claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many
class claims.
VII. CLAIMS
COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988
Use of Excessive Force
(Individually Against Officer Sabo)
84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above allegations as if fully set
forth herein.
85. Excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment is objectively

unreasonable conduct that, given the facts and circumstances, would “shock the
conscience” and amount to an arbitrary exercise of governmental power.
86. Plaintiff had a constitutional right to be free from the unlawful and
excessive use of force, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, and to be free of cruel and
unusual punishment, pursuant to the Eighth Amendment.
87. The force used by Officer Sabo amounted to unlawful force that carried with
it a high risk of causing serious bodily harm to Plaintiff, was unnecessary and
unreasonable under the circumstances then and there existing.
-20-

88. Without warning or provocation, and while Plaintiff was being compliant
with all commands, Officer Sabo violently pushed or knocked Plaintiff down to the floor
and into a closet, causing Plaintiff’s head and left eye to strike a mop bucket stored in the
closet. As Officer Sabo knew, the closet was just out of view of the jail security cameras.
Having already injured Plaintiff, Officer Sabo then began viciously striking Plaintiff
about the face and body, no fewer than six and as many as eight times.
89. The totality of circumstances reveals that Officer Sabo’s actions, pushing
Plaintiff down to the floor and into a mop bucket and beating him about the face and
body was unreasonable, unnecessary, an excessive use-of-force, and cruel and unusual
punishment.
90. Officer Sabo’s actions were under color of law and deprived Plaintiff of his
rights secured under the Constitution. His actions – done with actual malice –
proximately caused serious physical and psychological injuries to Plaintiff, along with
pain and suffering.
91. As a result thereof, Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated.
92. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered
substantial physical and psychological injuries, pain and suffering, and incurred medical
expenses.
93. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
94. The conduct of the Officer Sabo was intentional, malicious, willful, wanton
and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or grossly negligent in
that this conduct shocks the conscience and is fundamentally offensive in a civilized
society, so as to justify the imposition of punitive damages on Officer Sabo.
-21-

COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
42 U.S.C. § 1983 & 1988
Failure to Protect Inmate in Custody
(Individually Against the Individual Defendants)
forth herein.
96. A special relationship existed between Plaintiff and the Defendants. From
the moment of Plaintiff’s incarceration, the Defendants owed him a duty to under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to take
reasonable measures to guarantee his safety while he was in their custody, including a
duty to protect him from violence at the hands of corrections officers.
97. At all times relevant, the Individual Defendants were charged with the
constitutional duty to protect Plaintiff and to not knowingly, with wanton disregard,
cause Plaintiff’s life, health, and safety to be endangered by intentionally and/or
deliberately ignoring any known dangers to Plaintiff.
98. The Individual Defendants, acting under the color of State law, breached
their duty to Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff from
violence at the hands of Officer Sabo. This constitutes violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights
in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
99. The individual Defendants, while acting under color of law, deprived
Plaintiff of his civil rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution when they acted with deliberate indifference and reckless
disregard toward Plaintiff’s safety, right to be afforded due process of law, and by, among
other things:
(a) Placing Plaintiff in the Jail under circumstances

conducive to assault or the eruption of violence;
-22-

(b) Not observing or protecting Plaintiff, or otherwise
standing by and allowing Plaintiff to be assaulted by a
corrections officer, resulting in unnecessary and severe
injuries to Plaintiff.
100. The above acts and omissions, while carried out under color of law, have no
justification or excuse in law, and instead constitute a gross abuse of governmental
authority and power, shock the conscience, are fundamentally unfair, arbitrary and
oppressive, and unrelated to any activity in which governmental officers may
appropriately and legally undertake in the course of protecting persons or property, or
ensuring civil order.
101. Sheriff Cassidy and Captain Carswell fostered and promoted a chronically,
severely overcrowded and inadequately staffed jail, which combined to create a culture
of insecurity and increase the chance of Jail violence. Despite knowing the risks to
inmate safety, they disregarded those risks.
102. Sheriff Cassidy and Captain Carswell violated their duty by not only
ignoring substantial risks of serious harm to Plaintiff, but also by creating a substantial
risk of harm to him and other inmates by acquiescing to, condoning, or otherwise
ratifying policies, customs, and/or practices that have effectively turned the Jail into a
house of mayhem, where inmates are:
(a) housed in cells so overcrowded that they are often

double- or even triple -bunked, lying on top of each
other;
(b) not housed according to any particular offense

classification (violent offenders are housed with non-
violent offenders);
(c) poorly supervised, if at all, by a severely understaffed

and untrained Jail staff;
(d) escorted away from security cameras to avoid video

recordings of correction officers actions; and
(e) housed in an unsafe environment perpetuated by

overcrowding, understaffing, and violence.
-23-

103. The Individual Defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference to the
health and safety of Plaintiff, proximately causing his injuries. As a result thereof,
Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
were violated.
expenses.
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
106. The conduct of the Individual Defendants was intentional, malicious, willful,
wanton and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or grossly
negligent in that this conduct shocks the conscience and is fundamentally offensive in a
civilized society, so as to justify the imposition of punitive damages on the Individual
Defendants.
COUNT THREE
42 U.S.C. 1983
Monell Claim: Failure to Train and Supervise
(Individually and for the Class Against Sullivan County)
forth herein.
108. At all times mentioned herein and prior thereto, Sullivan County had a
duty to train, instruct, supervise, and discipline their employees to assure they respected
and did not violate the constitutional and statutory rights of inmates, including, but not
limited to, the right to be safe and protected from injury while in custody, under the
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This
-24-

duty extends to ensuring that its officers were properly trained concerning the limits of
their authority to use force on inmates.
109. To succeed on a claim of failure to train, plaintiffs must establish (1) the
county’s training program was inadequate for the tasks the officers were required to
perform, (2) the inadequacy was the result of the county’s deliberate indifference, and (3)
the inadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury. Russo v. City of
Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1046 (6th Cir. 1992).
110. The Sixth Circuit has identified two ways to demonstrate a municipality's
deliberate indifference under a failure to train or supervise theory. First, Plaintiff may
“show prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the County has
ignored a history of abuse and was clearly on notice that the training in this particular
area was deficient and likely to cause injury.” Plinton v. Cnty. of Summit, 540 F.3d 459,
464 (6th Cir. 2008). Alternatively, “a single violation of federal rights, accompanied by
a showing that a municipality has failed to train its employees to handle recurring
situations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation, could trigger municipal
liability.” Id. According to the Supreme Court,
[I]t may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific

officers or employees the need for more or different training is
so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the
violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers ... can
reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the
need. In that event, the failure to provide proper training may
fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is
responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it
actually causes injury.
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989).
111. Sullivan County’s failure to develop, promulgate, and enforce lawful policies
outlining the guidelines for the appropriate use-of-force and to properly train its officers
and agents to follow such guidelines constitute deliberate indifference to the
Constitutional rights of citizens.
-25-

112. The lack of training endangers inmate safety. Officer Sabo’s beating of
Plaintiff evidenced a complete lack of training in proper procedures, indicating he
believed that he had the “green light” to use such violent and unlawful force on inmates.
113. Here, Sullivan County has
(a) failed to adequately train, supervise, and instruct

corrections officers in the use-of-force or violence,
especially in view of the culture of insecurity bred by
jail overcrowding, understaffing, and other unsafe jail
conditions; and
(b) failed to adequately train, supervise, and control

corrections officers in the proper response to threats of
violence.
114. Sullivan County’s policy of failing to train correctional officers on how to
refrain from using excessive force amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of
pretrial detainees and convicted persons in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Such training is of even greater import given the chronic understaffing and
overcrowding at, and structural inadequacy of, the Jail.
115. If Officer Sabo had been properly trained to respect the constitutional rights
of inmates, he would not have assaulted Plaintiff.
116. Prior to the incident alleged herein, Sullivan County and Sheriff Cassidy
facilitated, permitted, ratified, or condoned similar acts of inmate on inmate assaults,
and were deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of inmates in general and
Plaintiff in particular. Defendants knew, or should have known, of these practices,
patterns or policies of constitutional violations and additionally, of the existence of facts
and situations which created the potential of unconstitutional acts, and had a duty to
instruct, train, supervise, and discipline their subordinates to prevent similar acts to
others, but failed to do so.
117. Obviously, Officer Sabo lacked the “specific tools” or training to handle the
situation presented to him and to deal with the stress of working in an unsafe jail every
-26-

day. Officer Sabo believed that his actions would not be properly monitored or corrected
by supervisory officers and that his misconduct would be tolerated and accepted.
118. As a result thereof, Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated.
134. The actions of the Defendants were done with actual malice/willful and
wanton indifference toward Plaintiff and with deliberate disregard for his constitutional
rights and statutory rights, constitute deliberate indifference, and were the direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
expenses.
42 U.S.C. § 1988.
137. The conduct of the Defendants was intentional, malicious, willful, wanton
and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or grossly negligent in
that this conduct shocks the conscience and is fundamentally offensive in a civilized
society, so as to justify the imposition of punitive damages.
COUNT FOUR
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988
Monell Claim: Unsafe Jail Conditions
(Individually and for the Class Against Sullivan County)
forth herein.
139. By the policies and practices described herein, Sullivan County subjects
inmates, including Plaintiff and the inmate class he represents, to a substantial risk
-27-

of harm and injury from violence. These policies and practices have been, and
continue to be, implemented by Sullivan County and its agents or employees, and are
the proximate cause of the deprivation of rights secured by the United States
Constitution under the Eighth Amendment, as described herein.
140. Sullivan County has been and is aware of all of the deprivations
complained of herein, and has condoned or been deliberately indifferent to such
conduct.
141. Defendants, with deliberate indifference, gross negligence, and reckless
disregard for the safety, security, and constitutional, statutory, and common law
rights of Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated, maintained, enforced, tolerated,
permitted, acquiesced in, and applied policies or practices of, among other things:
(a) Chronic overcrowding at the Jail that has resulted in a

substantial increase in violence;
(b) Chronic under-staffing at the Jail;
(c) Failing to take adequate security measures to protect

inmates from unnecessary harm, including the use of
security cameras to monitor all acts of violence within
the Jail and properly training corrections officers; and
(d) Acquiescing in a culture of insecurity and violence.
142. These policies, customs, or practices are so permanent and well-settled
that they are accepted and unchallenged by Sullivan County, Sheriff Cassidy, and
Chief Carswell. Together, they constitute a policy, custom, or practice of deliberate
indifference to the safety of inmates, including Plaintiff. They also serve as
affirmative links and motivating forces behind the deliberate indifference of
Defendants, acting in concert to create the substantial risk of harm that resulted in
severe injuries to Plaintiff at the hands of Officer Sabo.
143. Here, there is a policy, custom, or practice of deliberate indifference to
inmate-safety in the Jail. This is evidenced by Sullivan County’s failure to eradicate
-28-

the well-documented overcrowding, understaffing, and other unsafe conditions at the
Jail.
144. Sullivan County has long known the chronic and severe jail conditions
created a dangerous environment for inmates, and led to an increasing number of
assaults on inmates, by other inmates and corrections officers alike. These
long-standing conditions of confinement reflect the existence of a custom for § 1983
purposes. The information also put Sullivan County and Sheriff Cassidy on notice
that the Jail was unsafe to house inmates.
145. The Jail policymakers – Sheriff Cassidy and Captain Carswell – concede
the existence of severe overcrowding and acknowledge the accuracy of TCI’s
inspections. They were aware (1) that the inmate-population increases every year,
with the average daily population often numbering more than 1000, almost 400 above
the official maximum capacity; (2) that often as many or more than 100 inmates were
forced to sleep on the floor; (3) that the Jail had inadequate staff to insure the safety
and security of inmates or officers; and (4) that these things have inevitably led to
rising violence and a culture of insecurity among inmates and corrections officers
alike. Sheriff Cassidy and Captain Carswell realized they had a duty to provide
constitutional conditions of confinement regardless of the number of inmates or
corrections officers overseeing them.
146. The custom or practice was tacitly endorsed by Sheriff Cassidy and
Captain Carswell – the policymakers for the SCSO and the Jail, respectively, by their
failure to take action to alleviate the problem once they became aware of it.
147. While overcrowding, in and of itself, is not necessarily unconstitutional,
it may violate the constitution when an increase in violence results or reduces the
availability of other constitutionally required services. And all of this indicates a
systematic problem, as opposed to an isolated incident.
-29-

148. The policies described herein, whereby the Jail is made unsafe and
insecure to inmates who inhabit it, are, among other things, policies of reckless or
deliberate indifference, comparable to deliberate action, such that the reasonably
foreseeable consequence of these policies include the deprivation of Plaintiff’s and
other inmates constitutional rights, and the serious and disabling bodily and
psychological injuries to Plaintiff. Sullivan County condoned these policies, exhibiting
a marked failure to protect inmates within its custody.
149. All of these actions were done in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under
color of state law and constituted a systematic custom, policy, practice and procedure
instituted for denial of the civil rights of inmates.
150. Sullivan County policymakers, including Defendant Sheriff Cassidy,
were aware of, but chose to disregard, the unjustifiably high risk that these conditions
at the Jail would likely cause inmates to be assaulted by other inmates.
151. As a result thereof, Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated.
substantial physical and psychological injuries, pain and suffering, and incurred
medical expenses.
153. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT FIVE
TENNESSEE GOVERNMENTAL TORT LIABILITY ACT
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-101
(Individually Against All Defendants)
forth herein.
-30-

155. Sullivan County was responsible for the supervision of the Individual
Defendants.
156. Pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, the
Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care to provide him with a safe environment while
he was detained in their custody.
157. Defendants breached the duty of care as set forth herein and are
therefore liable to Plaintiff.
158. Plaintiff seeks money damages in the maximum amount allowed under
Tennessee law.
COUNT SIX
Assault & Battery
Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-301 et. seq.
(Individually Against Officer Sabo)
forth herein.
160. Plaintiff avers that the Officer Sabo knowingly, wantonly, intentionally,
and with gross disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, assaulted the Plaintiff.
161. Officer Sabo did intentionally attempt to commit and did so commit
serious bodily harm on the Plaintiff and caused him to suffer substantial
psychological trauma. Officer Sabo possessed a contemporaneous and/or appearance
of the present ability to cause such harm and trauma. Accordingly, Officer Sabo
committed an assault against the Plaintiff, making contact with the Plaintiff in a
harmful and offensive way, committing battery against her.
162. Sullivan County is responsible for the acts of its employees and agents
pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior and is liable to Plaintiff pursuant to
Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-8-301 et seq.
-31-

163. Plaintiff suffered physical and psychological injuries as a proximate
result of the assault and battery by Officer Sabo.
COUNT SEVEN
Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act

Tenn. Code. Ann. §29-20-101
False Imprisonment
(Individually Against Officer Sabo and Sullivan County)
forth herein.
165. Plaintiff avers that Officer Sabo breached a duty of care owed to
Plaintiff, so as not to deprive him of his personal liberty, by intentionally restraining
Plaintiff without just cause. Plaintiff avers that Officer Sabo, without probable cause,
wrongfully and unlawfully restrained Plaintiff against his will through use of force.
166. Plaintiff avers that Officer Sabo is liable to him for false imprisonment.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the false imprisonment by the Defendants,
Plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries and emotional distress.
COUNT EIGHT
OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT/
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against All Defendants)
forth herein.
168. The allegations outlined herein against the individually named
Defendants while Defendants were acting under the color of law, were outrageous and
intolerable in a civilized society and were done with a reckless disregard of the
probability of causing emotional distress.
-32-

169. The conduct of Defendants, as outlined above, was outrageous.
Defendants knew that their conduct would likely result in bodily injuries and severe
emotional distress to Plaintiff, and their conduct was perpetrated with intent to
inflict, or with reckless disregard of the probability of inflicting, mental anguish and
severe emotional distress upon Plaintiff.
170. As a result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained and
suffered, and continues to suffer, personal injuries, including emotional distress
(insomnia, nightmares, and other effects of psychological trauma associated with
being beaten by an authority figure).
171. Sullivan County is liable to Plaintiff under Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-8-301 et
seq.
VIII. DAMAGES
forth herein.
173. As a direct and proximate result of the deliberately indifferent and wrongful
conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer, injury, damage, and
loss including, but not limited to severe emotional distress, impairment of earning
capacity, medical expenses, past and future, pain and suffering; and loss of enjoyment
of life.
174. The wrongful acts of the individually named Defendants were willful,
oppressive, intentional, and malicious; therefore punitive damages should be asserted
against Defendants in an amount deemed sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and
others in similar positions of authority from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
175. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), Plaintiff is entitled to recover his
reasonable attorney fees incurred herein.
-33-

IX. JURY DEMAND
176. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial
by jury of all claims asserted in this Complaint so triable.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff prays:
A. That the summons be issued and that Defendants be duly served with a
copy of this Complaint and required to answer the same;
B. That the Court find that Defendants have engaged in the conduct and
statutory and common law violations alleged herein;
C. That Plaintiff be awarded such damages as will fully compensate him for
all injuries caused by Defendants’ actions and that a judgement in favor of Plaintiff be
entered;
D. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined by the trier of fact, not to exceed $500,000;
E. That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an amount to be determined
by the trier of fact, not to exceed $2,500,000;

F. That the Class be awarded damages in an amount deemed appropriate by
the jury;
G. That Plaintiff and the Class he represents have no adequate remedy at law
to fully redress the wrongs suffered as set forth in this Complaint. The Inmate Class has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury as a result of the unlawful acts,
omissions, policies, and practices of Sullivan County, as alleged herein, unless they are
-34-

granted the relief they request. The need for relief is critical because the rights at issue
are paramount under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of
Tennessee.
H. That Plaintiff recover his costs of this suit, including reasonable attorney’s
fees and discretionary costs, as provided by law;
I. That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
permitted by common law or applicable statute and such other and further relief as may
be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Thomas C. Jessee
Thomas C. Jessee (BPR 00113)
Jessee & Jessee
P.O. Box 997
Johnson City, TN 37605
423-928-7175
s/Corey B. Shipley
Corey B. Shipley (BPR 032772)
Collins Shipley, PLLC
128 S. Main Street, Suite 102
Greeneville, TN 37743
423-972-4388
s/M. Curtis Collins

M. Curtis Collins (BPR 030111)
Collins Shipley, PLLC
128 S. Main Street, Suite 102
Greeneville, TN 37743
423-972-4388
-35-

/s/ Lance K. Baker
Lance K. Baker (BPR 032945)
The Baker Law Firm
Bank of America Center
550 Main Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37902
Tel: (865) 200-4117
Fax:(865) 437-3370
lance@lbakerlawfirm.com
-36-

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1-1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 37
JS 44 (Rev. 08/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

TRAVIS BELLEW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly SULLIVAN COUNTY, ET AL
situated
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Thomas C. Jessee, Jessee & Jessee, P.O. Box 997, Johnson City, TN
37605; 423-928-7175
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC Section 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
A violation of civil rights due to failure to supervise
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 3,000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
10/28/2019 s/Thomas C. Jessee
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW

AMOUNT Document
APPLYING IFP 1-4 Filed 10/28/19
JUDGE Page 1 ofMAG.
1 JUDGE
PageID #: 43
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District Tennessee
__________
TRAVIS BELLEW, on behalf of himself and all )

others similary situated )
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ET AL )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Sullivan County

c/o Richard Venable, County Mayor
3411 Highway 126, Suite 206
Blountville, TN 37617
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are:
Collins Shipley, PLLC Thomas C. Jessee The Baker Law Firm
128 S. Main Street, Suite 102 Jessee & Jessee Lance K. Baker
Greeenville, TN 37743 P.O. Box 997 550 W. Main St., Suite 600
423-972-4388 Johnson City, TN 37605 Knoxville, TN 37902
423-928-7175 865-200-4117
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:


for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District Tennessee
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Sheriff Jeff Cassidy

140 Blountville Bypass
423-928-7175 865-200-4117
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District Tennessee
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Captain Lee Carswell

423-928-7175 865-200-4117
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District Tennessee
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Officer Christopher Sabo

423-928-7175 865-200-4117
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address


for the
Eastern District
__________ of of
District Tennessee
__________

)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
To: (Defendant’s name and address) John and Jane Does, employees of Sullivan County Sheriff's Department
Sullivan County Jail
423-928-7175 865-200-4117
CLERK OF COURT
Date:

Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE


on (date) ; or

on (date) ; or
.
Date:
Server’s address

Lawsuit Against Former Jailer

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lawsuit Against Former Jailer

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

TRAVIS BELLEW, on behalf of himself )

Jane Does 1-10, would respectfully state as follows:

1. On October 29, 2018, as Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sullivan County Jail

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 1

including severe overcrowding and understaffing, untrained officers, the absence of

any inmate classification system to separate violent inmates from non-violent

SCSO, knowingly expose inmates to severely overcrowded conditions of confinement,

providing inadequately trained or untrained corrections officers and inadequate

security to inmates, they have also exposed inmates, including Plaintiff, to

substantial, unreasonable, and life-threatening risks of harm.

4. The Jail is chronically and severely overcrowded, with inmates

unreasonable threat of harm to everyone’s safety, including staff and inmates.

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 2

the constitutional rights of inmates. Indeed, the Jail conditions, variously

characterized as “decrepit,” a “lethal cocktail,” and a “critical mass” situation by

mentality” among inmates, resulting in “around 30 inmate-on-inmate assaults each

sometimes there are a couple in a week.

6. In short, Sullivan County has adopted a widespread policy, practice, or

custom of deliberate indifference to these dangerous and deplorable conditions, i.e.,

overcrowding, inadequate staffing, lack of security, and other safety-related

unreasonably violent reactions to inmates, even when not threatened.

7. According to incident reports, from October 2018 to December 2018, just

to prevent and reduce such violence.

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 3

unconstitutional and illegal conditions. The deliberate indifference to inmate safety

is unconscionable, and must be stopped to prevent additional unnecessary injury,

loss of life, pain, and suffering.

9. By this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for himself under

omissions of each Defendants leading up to the assault by Officer Christopher Sabo.

to recover damages for exposure to the dangerous, overcrowded, and unconstitutional

conditions in the Jail and to alleviate those conditions.

of the violence – understaffing, overcrowded cells, lack of training and adequate

existent inmate classification system – are well-known to and tolerated by Sullivan

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 4

Tennessee, Northeastern Division, at Greeneville, because a substantial part of the

events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Sullivan County, Tennessee.

14. The Plaintiff, Travis Bellew, is a citizen of Sullivan County, currently

residing at 2525 Bloomingdale Road, Kingsport, Tennessee.

15. The Defendant, Sullivan County, Tennessee, (“Sullivan County”), is a

governmental entity and political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. It may be

among other things, must:

(a) train and certify its law enforcement employees;

(b) implement procedures and protocol to adhere to the Due

(c) Build, maintain, and fund a safe and adequate jail.

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 5

inmates, with an annual operating budget of nearly $10,000,000.00.

practices affecting all facets of the training, supervision, control, employment,

assignment and removal of individual members of the SCSO, including those

United States and the State of Tennessee.

Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material hereto,

Sheriff Cassidy was operating under color of law.

Case 2:19-cv-00191-TAV-CRW Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 6

and servants, including policymakers, and through Sheriff Cassidy.

lives and safety of inmates were to be secured.

25. Defendant, Lee Carswell (“Captain Carswell”) is, based upon

at 140 Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material

SCSO. Captain Carswell is designated to operate the Jail facility on a day-to-day

26. Defendant, Christopher Sabo (“Officer Sabo”), is, based upon

at 140 Blountville Bypass, Blountville, Tennessee 37617. At all times material

bond. Officer Sabo was operating under color of law.

Plaintiff. These Defendants are sued in their individual capacities as SCSO