Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Adams v. Corrections Corporation of America
2005cv60 (Colo. Dist. Ct. Crowley County filed August 23, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55946
Description
Inmates in Privately Operated Facility Seek Damages Following Prison Riot
Abstract
Plaintiffs filed a complaint challenging defendant private
company’s treatment of prisoners under its custody and
control. Plaintiffs—inmates incarcerated at a prison operated
by defendant—claim that they suffered physical and mental
injuries as a result of a riot at the facility. They assert that
defendant has a national policy and practice of cutting costs by
building prisons in remote rural areas, understaffing them, and
inadequately training its guards. Plaintiffs maintain that
defendant increases its profits by accepting inmates from other
states in order to keep its prisons filled. Before the riot, 314
inmates from other states were moved to the facility, increasing
the total population to 1,130. Plaintiffs claim that defendant knew
or should have known that this practice would result in resentment
and anger over the inequities arising from the disparate treatment
of each group. The rioters broke into two housing units and the
prison management office, started fires in the units, and assaulted
other inmates. Several plaintiffs were trapped in their housing
units in danger from fire, smoke inhalation, and rioting inmates.
After the prison guards took control of the prison, plaintiffs
assert, defendant’s employees handcuffed them, denied water
and restroom facilities, and physically abused them. Plaintiffs
claim that defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of
the riot. They claim that defendant was negligent in failing to
plan properly for disturbances, to train its employees and security
personnel properly on control of an inmate disturbance, and to have
an adequate number of trained staff on duty to quash the
disturbance before it worsened into a riot. Plaintiffs claim that,
in trying to quell the disturbance, defendants’ employees
committed assault and battery on plaintiffs and used excessive and
unlawful force to punish them. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages.
