The family of slain inmate Dinesh Raman is suing the Government for both general and aggravated damages for causing the death of their loved one in prison.
The Government has accepted responsibility for Dinesh’s death, which they say arose out of negligence of the prison officers when they tried to restrain him after Dinesh allegedly kicked a prison officer. The Government asserts that Dinesh died from positional asphyxia as a result of being left unattended in a in a “prone position” on the floor that restricted the respiratory movements of his chest and abdomen after he had become unconscious.
The case presented by Dinesh’s family’s attorneys is more expansive in its detail of the events leading up to the physical altercation between the prison guards and Dinesh on the day of his death. The family contends that a prison officer had been angered by Dinesh, who had shown the prison officer the middle finger and uttered a vulgarity at him. The officers then let Dinesh out to the yard (though he was not supposed to be in the yard that day), where that prison officer who had been angered set upon Dinesh and assaulted him. Other prison officers joined in the assault. When they brought Dinesh to the isolation cell after the assault, they knew he was already unconscious and unresponsive. He was deliberately left in the cell with no effort to resuscitate him.
Dinesh’s family asserts that Dinesh’s death is therefore one of intentional assault and that is why they are asking for aggravated damages. The family wants the government to admit liability based on the version of the facts that they have presented and not the government’s version of the events that led to their loved one’s death.
Aggravated damages are being sought in addition to the general damages because the actions by the officers were not merely a negligent act but deliberate and intentional. This is diametrically opposed to the way that the government has presented its account of the circumstances of Dinesh’s death.
In other words:
- Our clients want the government to admit liability based on our version of the facts and not the government’s version.
- Our clients are also seeking aggravated damages in addition to the general damages because the actions by the officers were not merely a negligent act but deliberate and intentional. This is diametrically opposed to the government’s position .