UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ , pro se..
(Plaintiff)
V. COMPLAINT
Civil Action No.:_________
MARK S. INCH , Secretary , F.D.O.C.
________________ , Inspector General Agent
________________ , State Classification Officer
J. COLON , Warden , Dade C.I.
J. JONES ,Assistant warden , Dade C.I.
URBIN , Colonial Dade C.I.
JONATHAN FAN-FAN ,Classification specialist .
( Defendants )
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
l . JURISDICTION and VENUE .
1. This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the deprivation , under coler of state law, of rights secured by the constitution of the United states . The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 (a)(3) . Plaintiff seeks declatory rellief pursuent to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 . Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are autherized by 28 U.S.C. 2283 and 2284 and rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .
2. The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(2) because it is where the events giving rise to this claim occurred .
ll. PLAINTIFF .
3. Plaintiff Michael Moskowitz , is and was at all times mentioned herein a prisoner of the state of Florida in the custody of the Florida Departmentof Corrections . Plaintiff is currently a prisoner in _____________________________.
lll. DEFENDANTS .
4. Defendant Mark S. Inch , Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections . He is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Department and each prison under it’s jurisdiction , including Dade C.I. .
5 . Defendant__________________ , Inspector General Agent . He is legally responsible for the investigation of all P.R.E.A. ( prison rape ) allegations . His duty is to report his findings to the I.C.T. and the S.C.O. ensuring the safety of the victim from the rapist and the rapists influence .
6 . Defendant _____________________, State Classification Officer . He is legally responsible for the review of inmate classification decisions recommended by the I.C.T. and is the final authority on releasing a prisoner into open population or grant protection procedures .
7 . Defendant J . Colon , Warden of Dade C.I. and member of the I.C.T. . He is legally responsible for the operations of Dade C.I. , for the welfare of all prisoners at that prison and partakes in the recommendations given by the I.C.T. to the S.C.O. .
8 . Defendant J. Jones , Assistant Warden of Dade C.I. and member of the I.C.T. . He is legally responsible for for the welfare of the prisoners at that prison and partakes in the recommendations given by the I.C.T. to the S.C.O.
9 . Defendant … Urban , Colonial of Dade C .I. and member of the I.C.T. . He is legally responsible for the security of that prison and partakes in the recommendations given by the I.C.T. to the S.C.O.. .
10 . Defendant Jonathan Fan-Fan , classification Specialist and member of the I.C.T. . He is legally responsible for preparing the docket for the I.C.T. , making recommendations to the I.C.T. and partakes in the recommendations given by the I.C.T. to the S.C.O.
11. Each Defendant is sued individually and in his official capacity . at all times mentioned in this complaint each Defendant acted under the color of state law .
lll. FACTS .
12 . On 8/ /17 Plaintiff Was transfered to Dade Correctional Institution ( Dade C.I. ) from Charlotte C.I. . Defendant’s assert this transfer was to ” resolve the need for protection ” , under their interpretation of Rule 33_602_220 .
13 . Plaintiff had previously been to Dade C.I. and was ”transfered to resolve the need for protection ” and should never have been returned to Dade C.I. as a means to ”resolve the need for protection ” from somewhere else . This created a classic non sequitur of reason .
14 . On 8/ /17 , Plaintiff’s first night upon returning to Dade C.I. she was placed in confinement . Sargent J. pina personally placed plaintiff in cell #F-2117 with Roberto Joaquin , even though plaintiff is a known transgender , male to female (pre-op/pre-h.r.t.) . Plaintiff has a past legal action against Sargent Pina from 2012 and has good reason to believe Sargent pina placed her in the cell with Roberto Joaquin to be assaulted . Roberto Joaquin even stated so .
15 . After some questions , Roberto Joaquin told plaintiff to do everything he ordered or he would ”fuck her up bad , and no one would help because they all hate crackers here” .
16 . At some point later that evening Roberto Joaquin put a towel over the cell window ( so the security Canada wouldn’t see ) and raped orally and anally the plaintiff . The rape occurred a second time that night after the cell lights were turned of.
17. There are procedures in confinement that make it very dangerous for a victim to get help , so plaintiff was reasonably in fear for her life and waited for Roberto Joaquin to go to sleep before trying to seek help , then she wrote on a paper ” my cellmate raped me I need help ” and then held it out the door crack when the guard on duty made rounds , but he just walked past it at every round .
18. The next morning when a mental healthcare worker made rounds plaintiff held it out the door crack and she took the paper ,read it and immediately had the plaintiff taken from the cell and sent to medical .
19 . The plaintiff was taken to the Roxy Bolton rape treatment center in Miami and a forensic examination for rape was conducted on her , which confirmed that Roberto Joaquin did rape plaintiff Moskowitz .
20 . Plaintiff was interviewed by Miami/Dade police detective , Darlene Cordero . The crime was given case # PD170804294783 . Plaintiff was taken back to Dade C.I. and placed in isolation in the prison medical department .
21 . On 8/22/17 the Defendants forced plaintiff Moskowitz back into open prison population at Dade C.I. with her rapist , ignoring the fact that to do so would be placing the plaintiffs life in serious danger .
22 . Between 8/22/17 and 8/25/17 , plaintiff used the ”TIPS” HOTLINE three times to report that she had been forced back into open prison population at Dade C.I. with her rapist and that she was in fear for her life because several other prisoners were threatening her and harassing her , and she believed an overt betrayal by the Institutional classification team .
23 . On 8/25/17 , returning to the dorm from the mess hall , plaintiff was struck on the right side of her head from behind . Plaintiff was stunned and bent over but the blows continued . At some point the plaintiff was picked up and bodily slammed onto the side walk and lost consciousness . Plaintiff believes on good faith that she wes assaulted by several prisoners .
24 . The plaintiff was in the process of being helped back to the dorm by witness , Curtis Brown , when she regained consciousness . Back in the dorm , the plaintiff was was afraid to leave the cell or get medical help . Injuries sustained by the plaintiff from the attack include : Impaired balance , lower back pain , severe pain in left ribs that caused breathing problems , right knee pain jaw pain and locking .
25 . Later that evening , witness , Curtis Brown informed the guards what happened and that plaintiff needed help . two guards came and took plaintiff to medical and then placed her in confinement . the injuries were documented but not treated.
26 . on 8/29/17 Sargent J. Pina moved Roberto Joaquin in the cell directly in front of hers , where Roberto Joaquin verbally abused and threatened her and incited other prisoners to do the same . ( see exhibit – c , grievance #463-1708-0450 ) .
27. On 8/27/17 plaintiff submitted a formal P.R.E.A. ( prison rape ) grievance to defendant J.Colon at Dade C.I. ( see exhibit – b , log #1708-463-250 ) alleging violations of prison rape procedures , cruel and unusual punishment , deliberate indifference and breach of security for forcing her into open prison population with her rapist seeking the remedy of being ”special reviewed”” with her rapist and placement in perminant protective management . ”special review” refers to a prisoner being flagged with one or more other prisoners ,to keep those prisoners at separate prisons . ”’permanent protective management” refers to a specialized unit in the prison system that keeps vulnerable – at risk of being harmed prisoners – away from extremely dangerous circumstances .
28. On 9/8/17 defendants J.Colon and J. Jones issued a written response stating the plaintiff s grievance was approved ( see exhibit – b) however the plaintiff was never placed in a permanent protection unit . She was once again merely ” transfered to resolve the need for protection ” from Dade C.I. to Lake C.I. .
29. In October 2017 plaintiff arrived at Lake C.I. On her fourth day there she went into an intense panic attack with no warning at all . Force was used against the plaintiff because the guards claimed not to know what was wrong with her , having no previous experience with panic attack victims . They placed the plaintiff into confinement , which exacerbated the symptoms and caused a type of flash back . the guards sprayed the plaintiff three times with. chemical agents before realizing that something clinical was wrong and then took the plaintiff to the prison mental health unit , gave her two injections to sedate her and then placed her under observation for several days before releasing her . Plaintiff asserts this was a side effect from rape trauma syndrome .
30. For the next several months , the plaintiff was treated with pyciatric care and regular appointments with psychology specialist Ponce. plaintiff reported extreme fears of being harmed , flash backs , anxiety, depression and going days (even weeks) without being able to sleep, eat or shower, being unable to basically leave her cell for fear . Plaintiff also reported having fainting spells .
31. On 5/19/18 plaintiff Was in such fearful state that she had to be hospitalized in the prison mental health unit at Santa Rosa C.I. where she currently is to date .
lll. SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS .
32. The sublimental facts are included in this civil action to show that Defendant Mark S. Inch , Secretary of the F.D.O.C. created a thirty year long historical pattern of willfully placing plaintiff moskowitz at substantial risk to serious harm .
33. Plaintiff Moskowitz was arrested as a teenager in 1989 , given a life sentence and entered the F.D.O.C. on 7/3/90. Plaintiff was considered too young , too small , too pretty and too feminine.
34. In a verry Short time plaintiff requested to be placed in Permanent protective management ( which was new in the Department back then.) , because she was being extorted and sexualized. She was transfered from Hendry C.I. to Polk C.I. to ”resolve the need for protection ‘.’ (1990).
35. Within a few short months plaintiff Moskowitz requested permanent protective management for the same reason . She was ” transfered to resolve the need for protection ” from Polk C.I. to Avon park C.I.
36. By 1993 plaintiff Moskowitz was housed at Florida State Prison ( F.S.P. ) , becoming the victim of years of sexual , physical, and emotional abuse .Quoting statements given to the F.B.I.
” In 1996 I Had the orbit in my left eye fractured , causing the eye to come out. In another assault I was attacked with a knife because I refused to have sex with another prisoner . I requested permanent protective management and wes denied , even though I presented letters from these prisoners , threatening my life …..Six months later I requested permanent protective management again and again was denied …..There were times when Sargent Nelson forced me to wear hand made panties on my head in front of the whole wing ( 100 men ) , forced to shower in a three person shower with twenty men inside of it with the lights knocked out I was forced to pull my pants down and bend over a chair while I sang ‘ happy birthday ‘ to a guard Officer Lite forced me to put my fingers and other objects into my anus and masterbate while he watched I was forced by Sargent Nelson to take off my pants and underwear then mop the floor in front of the whole wing while he walked behind me verbally abusing me I was forced into an arena to be beaten by another prisoner , resulting in a 2″ gash over my mouth. I requested permanent protective management a total of three times end was denied . The abuse at F.S.P. ended on 1999 when I wes allowed to be raped by another prisoner ”’.
I was ”transfered to resolve the need for protection”from F.S.P. to Union C.I. (1999)
37. plaintiff was transfered to Washington C.I. in 2002 . plaintiff requested permanent protective management and was denied . A couple months later she was “transfered to resolve the need for protection” from Washington C.I. back to F.S.P. (2003) .
38. Seventeen days later plaintiff was ” transfered to resolve the need for protection” from F.S.P. to Charlotte C.I.
39. In 2005 , while at Dade C.I. (first time) plaintiff requested permanent protective management and was transfered back to Washington C.I. to ”’ resolve the need for protection” . (2005)
40. In 2007 plaintiff was witness to gang member Mitchell Aguiniga , assaulting prison guard Armstrong. Plaintiff wrote a statement against Aguiniga . (case #08-247cf), A few months later Administrative Lieutenant Sanders informed plaintiff Moskowitz that a $1200 contract had been placed on her life because of this and plaintiff was ”transfered to resolve the need for protection”from Washington C.I. to Jefferson C.I. (2007).
41. In less than a month the plaintiff requested permanent protective management because issues relating to the Aguiniga case were , plaintiff believes on information , that information was relayed from prison to prison via illegal cell phones used by prison gangs . Plaintiff was ”transfered to resolve the need for protection ” from Jefferson C.I. to Lake C.I.(2007) .
42. In 2012 , at Dade C.I. , plaintiff requested permanent protective management from prisoners and guards , including Sargent J. Pin a and defendant Jonathan Fan-Fan ( see exhibit – a) , which resulted in a legal action . Plaintiff was ” transfered to resolve the need for protection ”from Dade C.I. to Union C.I.(2012) .
43. In 2014 plaintiff was sent back to Washington C.I. for the third time , and once again requested permanent protective management for being stabbed under the left arm pit near the heart about the Aguiniga case and having problems with gangs . Protection was denied . Weeks later plaintiff again requested permanent protective management with the help of outside influence from Sid Kleiner , President , Beth Tikvah Jewish Prisoner Outreach who contacted the defendant secretary of the F.D.O.C. and launched a formal complaint . On 3/18/15 plaintiff was ” transfered to resolve the need for protection ” from Washington C.I. main unit to Washington C.I. annex ( separate prisons ) . About six weeks later plaintiff was “” transferred to resolve the need for protection ” from Washington C.I. annex to Apalachee C.I.(2015)
44. In 2016 , at Columbia C.I. annex plaintiff requested permanent protective management and was ” transfered to resolve the need for protection “” from Columbia C.I. annex to Columbia C.I. main unit . Weeks later , plaintiff was transferred to resolve the need for protection “” from Columbia C.I. main unit to Charlotte C.I.
45. While at Charlotte C.I. plaintiff Moskowitz was placed in the dorm with Mitchell Aguiniga . The essential problem with this , is having been a witness against Aguiniga , plaintiff Moskowitz was to be ”special reviewed ” with Aguiniga and kept safe from him in the same way as someone in the witness protection program is . The fact that the plaintiff needed to be ” transfered to resolve protection ” three times previously over the Aguiniga case and still ended up ,not only at the same prison with Aguiniga , himself , but was also placed in the same dorm with him ,is proof positive that defendant secretary has made a clear pattern of possibly trying to get plaintiff Moskowitz killed or seriously harmed .(see exhibits d-e)
46. While at Charlotte C.I. , waiting for the disposition of her request for perminant protective management , there were several incidents of being threatened to be hunted down and killed, and prices were put on her life (see exhibits f–m). plaintiff was ”transfered to resolve protection ”from Charlotte C.I. back to Dade C.I. .
47. Plaintiff has requested perminant protective management a total of 19 times in thirty years of incarceration . Defendant secretary has only saw fit to ”transfer to resolve protection ” as the only solution . Defendant secretary returned plaintiff Moskowitz to Washington C.I. 3 times after ”transferring her to resolve protection ” each time returned plaintiff to Dade C.I. 3 times after ” transferring to resolve protection” returned plaintiff to F.S.P. 2 times . none of these actions reflect any form of concern or reason (see exhibits n–q)
V. EXHAUSTION OF LEGAL REMIDIES .
48. on 8/1/18 plaintiff Moskowitz , in a formal grievance , sought perminant protective management due to the entirety of being denied placement in perminant protective management , including the rape situation at Dade C.I.. Grievance was approved but never acted upon ( see exhibit -r , log #1808-119-013)
48. On 12/4/18 plaintiff used the prisoner grievance process available at Santa Rosa C.I. to try and remedy the problems. Plaintiff Moskowitz received a response saying the grievance had been denied on 12/5/18 (see exhibit-s ,#1812-119-042).
49. On 12/12/18 plaintiff appealed the denial to defendant Mark S. Inch , secretary OfF.D.O.C. . On 12/21/18 defendant denied the appeal ,thereby plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies . (see exhibit – t #18-6-53218).
50. To the suplimental facts plaintiff Moskowitz sought administrative remedies many times , to no avail (see specific exhibits _____ through____, which are very limited examples , as plaintiff lost much of his paperwork over the years to mishandling by guards .
VI. LEGAL CLAIMS .
CLAIM ~ONE
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 .
CLAIM~TWO
Defendants denied plaintiff Moskowitz the liberty interest of the full provisions guaranteed in the defendants own published procedures titled : PRISON RAPE: prevention , detection and response : Procedure #602.053 . Thereby , did violate plaintiff Moskowitz’s rights and constituted a breach of due process under the 5th Amendment to the united states Constitution . As proof , plaintiff offers:
The provisions found in the defendant’s published procedure #602.053 , established an exact duty and line of action to be followed once a rape has been reported , which entitles plaintiff opportunity to appeal a decision before it is to be acted on . The specific steps are:
a). Separate victim and rapist
b). Ensure that the rapist and the victim do nothing to destroy evidence of the rape
c). Preserve and protect the crime scene until appropriate steps can be taken to collect evidence
d). Notify the shift supervisor , the Colenal (chief of security) , the Warden and the Inspector General’s office
e). The victim of the rape shall be given a copy of N/1-120 and advised of her right to access crisis intervention services and to have victim advocate . This shall be documented on DC6-210 form
f). After all evidence is preserved and collected After forensic examination and medical treatment The safety of the victim shall be provided for by and through Rule 33-602.220 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)
g). The victim will be allowed to indicate her housing preference on a “P.R.E.A.(Prison Rape Elimination Act) victim’s housing preference ”DC6-2084 form , indicating she prefers to remain in Administrative Confinement
h). Then , post-rape guidelines of Procedure #602.053 call for the Inspector General’s office to investigate all rapes
i). Prisoners who are guilty of rape will be dealt with according to the rules of discipline , whether or not criminal charges are pending , and victim shall be kept away and safe from the rapist
j). When the investigation is returned from the Inspected General , the Institutional Classification Team (I.C.T.) will be responsible for conducting a ”P.R.E.A. administrative security investigation” , utilizing a “”P.R.E.A. Investigation Report” DC6-2079 form
k). upon completion of this investigation , the I.C.T. will be responsible for notifying the rape victim of the outcome of the investigation , via an ”Inmate Notification Administrative Outcome ” D.C.6-2080 form
l). All case records from a P.R.E.A. investigation shall be retained for 10 years (see exibit -_ for entire rule referenced).
The essential parts of this process which plaintiff Moskowitz asserts she has a Due Process Iiberty interest and was denied by the defendants, are :
1). Defendants did knowingly and willingly deny plaintiff the guaranteed right to the process found in Rule 33-602.220 . Refer to f). above .
2). Defendants did knowingly and willingly deny plaintiff the guaranteed right to indicate her housing preference on D.C.6-2084 form , which protects the victims of rape in Administrative Confinement . Refer to g). above .
3). The rapist was not subjected to the rules of discipline . Refer to I). above .
4). Defendants did knowingly and willingly fail to notify the plaintiff of the outcome , via D.C.6-2080 form or any other way . Refer to k). above .
CLAIM ~THREE
Defendants denied plaintiff Moskowitz the Liberty Interest guaranteed right to the process found in defendants own published procedure , Rule 33-602-200 F.A.C. thereby violating plaintiff Moskowitz’s right to Due process under the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution . As proof plaintiff asserts :
The process guaranteed by Rule #33-602.220 F.A.C. are :
a). The I.C.T. refers to the team members consisting of : Warden , Assistant Warden , Colonial , Classification Specialist . The legal responsibility of the team involve the programming , status and housing of the plaintiff . The I.C.T. makes decisions at the institutional level and recommendations to the S.C.O.
Thereby , violating the plaintiff’s right to Due Process under the 5th amendment to the United states Constitution .As proof , the plaintiff asserts :
The protected process guaranteed in Rule 33-602.200 F.A.C. are :
b). The S.C.O. refers to the staff member at central office level who is responsible for the review of plaintiff’s classification decisions and approve , reject all I.C.T. recommendations
c). When a prisoner is placed in Administrative Confinement , the I.C.T. will review a prisoner within 72 hours and will be documented on D.C.6-229 form
d). No prisoner shall be released from confinement until approved by the I.C.T. and S.C.O.
e). The classification Specialist is responsible for preparing the I.C.T. docket
f). When a prisoner is placed in Administrative Confinement pending Permanent Protective Management (P.P.M.) , the investigative report and I.C.T. action shall be completed within 15 work days
g). The I.C.T. is responsible for determining if the victim has a legitimate , verifiable need for protection . The I.C.T. shall review all documentation available concerning the need for protection
h). The following elliments shall be considered in determining whether P.P.M. is needed:
1). A record of having been assaulted
2). A reputation among the prison population as being an Informant or Trial
Witness
3). Verified threats , verbal abuse or harassment
4). Other factors , such as physical size , build , age that produce a risk in
open population
i). The I.C.T. makes recommendations concerning the prisoner’s risk and classification status to the S.C.O. for a final decision
j). The S.C.O. shall determine within 5 work days whether protection is needed, based on the information provided by the I.C.T. and the Inspector General’s office
k). The S.C.O decision shall be documented in the classification log in the ” Offender Based Information System ”(F.D.O.C. database)
l). If the S.C.O. determines that protection is needed , they shall direct that the prisoner be placed into P.P.M. or transfered to resolve the need for protection
m). If protection is denied , the victim shall be notified of the S.C.O decision by the I.C.T. . At that time , the victim may opt to appeal , and it shall be documented on D.C.6-157 form . The victim shall remain in confinement until the appeal process is concluded in full.
The essential parts of this process which plaintiff Moskowitz asserts she has a Due Process Liberty Interest and was denied are :
1). Plaintiff never received a 72 hour review . Refer to c). above
2). The Classification Specialist bypassed the docket . Refer to e). above
3). The I.C.T. ignored the prerequisites for granting and placing plaintiff into
P.P.M. . Refer to h). 1). through 4). above
4). S.C.O. decision was not logged into the O.B.I.S. . Refer to k). above
5). Defendants denied plaintiff Moskowitz her protected right to appeal the decision to return her to open population with her rapist. These actions and omissions did cause plaintiff Moskowitz pain , suffering , physical injury and emotional distress .
CLAIM~FOUR
Defendants Deliberate Indifference to the safety and protection of plaintiff Moskowitz by and through their willful sadistic and malicious actions did violate plaintiff’s rights and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th United States Constitution . As proof , plaintiff asserts :
The standard test to establish deliberate indifference has two prongs :
#1. That defendants knew that there was a substantial risk plaintiff would be seriously harmed and
#2. That defendants failed to respond reasonably to protect the plaintiff.
To satisfy prong #1. plaintiff asserts :
a). Defendants knew that there was serious risk harm would befall plaintiff Moskowitz by forcing her back into open prison population at Dade C.I. with her rapist because the plaintiff reported the rape (became an Informant to the crime) and forensic evidense proved that Roberto Joaquin did rape plaintiff Moskowitz. Thus all the defendants had prerequisite foreknowledge when making the decision to force plaintiff back into open prison population with her rapist
b). Defendants had the specific duty to keep plaintiff Moskowitz away from Roberto Joaquin and his associates in light of the factual circumstances and provide her with specific protection , both as rape victim and as the reporter of the crime .
c). Defendants had a specific duty that was preestablished and defined by the Prison Rape Procedure #602.053 and Rule 33-602.220 F.A.C.
d). Defendants possessed a documented history in plaintiff’s paper file as well as in the database of plaintiff having been previously raped , sexually abused , assaulted and needing protective care . All this information is reviewed prior to making any housing , status or classification decisions
e). Defendants knew that plaintiff is a documented transgender prisoner with feminine features and disposition , which qualifies her as a vulnerable prisoner requiring heightened security and protection .
To satisfy prong #2. plaintiff asserts :
a). Prison Rape Procedure #602.053 Rule 33-602.220 Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 and National P.R.E.A. Standards are required working knowledge for the defendants who are to employ compliance to them in protecting plaintiff Moskowitz as a rape victim in prison .Knowingly and willfully ignoring any tenant or article of these procedures in order to force plaintiff Moskowitz back into open prison population at Dade C I in the environs and proximity with her rapist ,Roberto Joaquin and his associates is something no reasonable person would do and has no logical penological purpose . Having done so , defendants did cause and continues to cause plaintiff Moskowitz pain , suffering , physical injury and emotional distress .
CLAIM~FIVE
Defendants Deliberate Indifference by and through willful sadistic and malicious intent did violate plaintiff Moskowitz’s rights and constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment under the 8th amendment to the United States Constitution . As proof , plaintiff Moskowitz asserts :
a). Defendants knowingly placed the plaintiff’s rapist , Roberto Joaquin , in the cell directly in front of her , where the rapist did verbally abuse her for having had reported the rape , and incited other prisoners to do likewise .(see exibit-_)
b). The defendants actions and omissions caused and/or exacerbated plaintiff’s psychiatric conditions of Rape Trauma Syndrome , Gender Dysphoria , Panic Attacks ,chronic anxiety , severe depression , persistent mood (affective) disorder , dissocial personality disorder , emotionally unstable personality disorder
c). . These actions and omissions violate Prison Rape Procedure #602.053 by not keeping the rapist and the plaintiff separated . Willfully ignoring the duty that this procedure created , the defendants did cause and continues to cause plaintiff Moskowitz pain , suffering , physical injury and emotional distress .
CLAIM~SIX
Defendant Mark S. Inch , Secretary of F.D.O.C. used Deliberate Indifference by and through willful sadistic and malicious intent did violate plaintiff Moskowitz’s rights and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment to the United States Constitution . As proof plaintiff Moskowitz asserts :
a). Defendant Inch has established a thirty year pattern of repeatedly placing the life and well-being of plaintiff Moskowitz in danger when he had foreknowledge of the substantial risk that plaintiff would be seriously harmed on many occasions
b). Defendant Inch has habitually mis-used his own published procedures by and through ignoring the established specific duty those published procedures created for him , in regards to the safety and protection of plaintiff Moskowitz while in his care , custody and control
c). Defendant Inch habitually ignored the documented history concerning plaintiff Moskowitz , which was in defendant Inch’s possession choosing instead , to return plaintiff Moskowitz time and again to the same prisons she was previously transferred away from for protection , repeatedly placing plaintiff Moskowitz in the states most dangerous prisons that were known for extreme violence , abuse , rape and high concentration of prison gangs .
d). Defendant Inch willfully created a long lasting psychologically inhumane and unreasonable existence for plaintiff Moskowitz , affecting a ”mouse in a maze ” scenario ,with danger lurking around each turn , without end . (see exhibit -_, Declaration)
e). This pattern established by defendant Inch has no logical , justifiable penological purpose not even rising to the standard of being a temporary solution to a permanent problem and is something no reasonable person would do or allow , in light that defendant always had the alternative optional provision of placing plaintiff Moskowitz into P.P.M. at any one of the many needed ocaissions for providing such protection .
Thereby , defendant Inch did cause plaintiff Moskowitz pain , suffering , physical injury and emotional distress .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Moskowitz respectfully prays that this honorable court enter judgement granting plaintiff Moskowitz :
1). A declaration that the acts and omissions described herein violate her rights under the constitution and laws of the United States , and
2). A preliminary and permanent injunction ordering defendants to grant and place plaintiff Moskowitz into a Permanent Protective Management unit , rendering her due protection , and
3). grant plaintiff Moskowitz compensatory damages of $20,000 against defendants ___________, Inspector General Agent _____________, State Classification Officer J . Colon J .Jones __Urban Jonathan Fan-Fan jointly and severely , and
4). Plaintiff Moskowitz seeks compensatory damages of $5,000 for every year Permanent Protective Management withheld $5,000 for every denial of Permanent Protective Management $5,000 for every ”transfer to resolve protection” $20,000 for every time defendant returned plaintiff Moskowitz to a prison she had previously been transferred away from for protection $5,000 for every documented report of injury attributed to being assaulted $20,000 for every time plaintiff Moskowitz was raped while in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections $10,000 for every hospitalization in a prison mental health unit attributed to cruel and unusual punishment while in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections $50,000 for permanent debilitating psychological trauma and/or adverse side effects attributed to long term abuses against defendant Mark .S. Inch only , and
5). Plaintiff Moskowitz seeks punitive damages of $7,000 against defendants ——–Inspector General Agent _____, State Classification Officer J. Colon J . Jones Urban Jonathan Fan-Fan jointly and severely , and
6). Plaintiff Moskowitz seeks punitive damages of $133,000 against defendant Mark S. Inch only, and
7). Plaintiff Moskowitz also seeks a jury trial on all issues triable by jury , and
8). Plaintiff Moskowitz also seeks recovery of her costs in this suit , and
9). Any additional and/or modified relief this honorable court deems , just , proper and equitable .
DATED :__/__/____
Respectfully Submitted ,
___________________________, Pro se ,
MICHAEL MOSKOWITZ , #183986
Grace Moskowitz: Writing and Art 