Terlep suicide

LAW OFFICE OF MARK GALLAGHER MARK F. GALLAGHER #6016-0 66 Kaiholu Place Kailua, Hawai`i 96734 Telephone: 808-535-1500 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAI`I COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Jason Terlep As Personal Representative For The Estate Of Drake Terlep, Norma Terlep-Panela, and Thomas Terlep allege the following against all Defendants: JASON TERLEP AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF DRAKE TERLEP; NORMA TERLEP￾PANELA; AND THOMAS TERLEP, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF HAWAIʻI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; TOMMY JOHNSON, in his official capacity; CRAMER MAHOE, in his official capacity; JOHN and/or JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants. CIVIL NO. (Non-Motor Vehicle Tort) COMPLAINT Electronically Filed THIRD CIRCUIT 3CCV-25-0000294 17-JUL-2025 02:52 PM Dkt. 1 CMP PARTIES a. Plaintiff Jason Terlep is a resident of the State of Hawaii and is the duly designated personal representative of the estate of Drake Terlep. b. Plaintiff Norma Terlep-Panela is a resident of the State of Hawaii and is the mother of Drake Terlep, deceased. c. Plaintiff Thomas Terlep a resident of the State of California and is the father of Drake Terlep, deceased. d. At all times relevant herein, Defendant State Of Hawaiʻi, Department Of Corrections and Rehabilitation (hereinafter “DCR”) is and was a public entity, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Hawaiʻi. Under this authority, DCR is charged with preserving the safety of prisoners incarcerated by the State of Hawai‘i. Defendant DCR is subject to tort liability pursuant to the State Tort Liability Act, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes sections 662-1, et seq. DCR, at all relevant times mentioned herein, was responsible for the acts and/or omissions and the policies, procedures, customs, and practices of its officers, managers, employees, and/or agents. 2 e. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Tommy Johnson (hereinafter “Johnson”) is and was the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, State of Hawaii. Mr. Johnson is and has been a resident of the State of Hawaiʻi. Johnson is sued in his official capacity. f. Defendant Cramer Mahoe (hereinafter “Mahoe”) is and was the warden of the Hawaii Community Correctional Center in Hilo, Hawaii. He is and was a resident of the State of Hawaii and is sued in his official capacity. g. Plaintiffs have attempted to ascertain the names and identities of possible defendants who are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ efforts include reviewing records and interviewing witnesses including other potential victims. h. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief, that the conduct of other defendants, presently unknown to Plaintiffs, were or may have been a proximate or legal cause of the harm that Plaintiffs have suffered as alleged herein. 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this matter pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) section 663-3, 662-3, and 663-7 and jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to HRS section 634-35. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in excess of $25,000. 2. Venue is proper in this circuit because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this circuit. Plaintiff Estate of Drake Terlep is located in Hawai‘i, and Plaintiff Norma Terlep-Panela is a resident of Hawai‘i. Defendants Johnson and Tahoe are residents of Hawai‘i. All of the parties have significant contacts with Hawai‘i. 3. This matter went through the Medical Inquiry and Conciliation Panel process. FACTS 4. At all times relevant herein, Defendant State, through its Department Of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is responsible for the safe and secure custody of incarcerated individuals, as well as providing rehabilitative services to help them successfully re-enter the community. The department's core duties include managing correctional facilities (jails and prisons), overseeing inmate programs, 4 and ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. These facilities include the Hawaii Community Correctional Center (“HCCC”) in Hilo. 5. DCR has a duty to maintain safe and secure correctional facilities, including HCCC, for both pre-trial detainees and sentenced individuals. These responsibilities include housing inmates, managing their movement within facilities, and providing for their basic needs, safety and well-being. 6. DCR is statutorily required to provide mental health services in community correctional centers such as HCCC. DCR also has a responsibility to address suicide and self￾harm within its correctional facilities. This responsibility includes providing crisis stabilization, suicide/safety watch, and other interventions 7. Inmates at DCR facilities have a right to reasonable security and safe custody, and facilities are required to take precautions against imminent harm, violent assaults, and other forms of abuse of inmates. 8. DCR facilities have a duty to develop procedures to provide a reasonable measure of safety for inmates from attacks or abuse from other inmates or facility personnel. 5 This duty includes utilizing technological devices like closed-circuit television to enhance supervision. 9. DCR has a duty not to place inmates in restrictive housing or other living spaces where there is reasonable cause to believe there is a risk of harm, harassment, intimidation, or abuse to them or other inmates. DCR has a comprehensive duty to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals under their care and custody. 10. DCR facilities are required to take reasonable precautions to protect inmates from imminent harm, violent assaults, or other forms of abuse. Facility personnel must make reasonable efforts to ensure inmate's safe custody. 11. DCR has a policy and practice of failing to provide sufficient mental health care to the more than individuals with serious mental health needs in its facilities. Those individuals suffer from severe mental illnesses, and many experience symptoms such as paranoia, auditory and visual hallucinations, and persistent thoughts of self-harm. 12. DCR’s mental health system is defined by severe staffing shortages, an inadequate screening and assessment process, significant delays in access to clinicians and medications, a dearth of treatment and services, inadequate treatment space, and an over reliance on harsh, restrictive 6 housing units. Defendant DCR’s system of care is wholly inadequate to meet the significant and growing mental health needs of its population. 13. Defendants routinely have refused to provide necessary treatment to inmates for their mental illnesses. Inmates have gone months without seeing a mental health provider, experienced significant delays in receiving prescription psychiatric medications, and were denied basic mental health care, despite repeated requests for treatment. 14. As a direct result of Defendants’ practice of inappropriately delaying and refusing to provide basic mental health treatment, inmates’ mental illnesses were allowed to progress unchecked, leading to hallucinations, delusions, and an increased risk of self- harm and suicide. 15. On or about August 18, 2023, Drake Terlep was an inmate at the Hawaii Community correctional Center when he was allegedly found unresponsive in his cell and subsequently pronounced dead of an apparent suicide. 16. At the time of his death Drake Terlep was housed in the general population with two other cellmates. He was due to be released in September. 17. Drake Terlep had a history of significant head injury as a young man and more recent mental health challenges. 7 18. Prior to his death Drake Terlep was afraid to leave his cell. He was verbally and physically abused by other inmates in circumstances of which Defendants’ employees were, or reasonably should have been, aware. 19. Prior to his death Drake Terlep demonstrated numerous signs and symptoms of the need for intervention and treatment to provide for his safety, security and well￾being including, without limitation, a change in his housing circumstances or location, movement to a facility providing appropriate mental health care, and/or appropriate and necessary mental health care in HCCC. 20. Defendants and their employees and representatives had notice that Drake Terlep posed a danger to himself and failed to necessary action. 21. Defendants and their employees and representatives knew or should have known of the need for appropriate and necessary metal health care for Drake Terlep, yet they failed to provide it. 22. Defendants failed to take basic measures to prevent suicide in their jails and prisons. Their policies and procedures failed to identify individuals at risk of suicide, such as Drake Terlep, failed to provide sufficient support to those who demonstrate self-harm or express 8 suicidal ideation, and discouraged reporting of suicidal intentions which increased the risks of suicide attempts and suicides. 23. Defendants failed to provide sufficient supervision of people at risk of suicide, and Drake Terlep in particular. 24. Defendants failed to properly train their staff about suicide risks and prevention; how to recognize and handle suicidal individuals; and in basic crisis intervention strategies. These failures resulted in the death of Drake Terlep. 25. As a direct result of the failures specified above and other wrongful and negligent acts by Defendants and each of of them, Drake Terlep lost his life. COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 26. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 27. Defendants had the duties set forth above with regard to the safety and well-being of Drake Terlep while he was an inmate at the Hawaii Community Correctional Center. 28. Defendants breached these duties by negligently failing to provide for Drake Terlep’s mental well-being and safety. 9 29. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the injuries and damages described herein. COUNT TWO NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 30. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 31. Defendants’ conduct toward Drake Terlep, as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 32. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate the physical harm and psychological abuse of suffered by Drake Terlep while incarcerated at HCCC. 33. Defendants’ conduct as described herein, was outrageous and extreme. 34. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants failing to properly provide for the mental health and well-being of a person in their custody. 35. Defendants’ conduct described herein was grossly negligent and done for the purpose of causing or with the substantial certainty or reckless or conscious disregard of the likelihood Plaintiffs suffering mental anguish and emotional and physical distress. 36. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer pain and suffering, 10 including but not limited to, anxiety, psychological harm, and emotional distress. 37. Plaintiffs, based on information and belief, allege that the conduct of Defendants was grossly negligent, oppressive, malicious and despicable in that it was done in reckless manner or with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others including those in their custody, and was carried out with a conscious disregard of their right to be free from such tortious behavior, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice. COUNT THREE VIOLATION OF STATE CONSITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNSUAL PUNISHMENT, HAW. CONST. ART. I, SECTION 12 38. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 39. Pursuant to the Hawai‘i Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment Defendants have an affirmative obligation to provide for the safety and mental health of inmates incarcerated at HCCC. 40. Defendants were, at all times relevant, policymakers for the DCR, and in that capacity established policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices for the same, particularly with regard to HCCC. 11 41. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted with willful and deliberate disregard for the safety and mental health of inmates such as Drake Terlep by failing to enact and/or follow appropriate policies, procedures, and regulations to respond to the needs of mentally ill inmates and prevent suicides and mental health-related injuries. 42. As a result of Defendants’ acts, omissions, policies, customs, and/or practices, Drake Terlep suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Article I, Section 12, of the Hawai‘i Constitution. 43. Such policies, customs, and/or practices include, but are not limited to, an ongoing pattern of deliberate indifference to: the health and safety of DCR inmates, the particular vulnerabilities faced by Drake Terlep and other inmates with suicidal ideation, measures necessary to protect Drake Terlep and other inmates with suicidal ideation from serious risks of harm arising from their particular vulnerabilities, adequate mental health staffing at HCCC and DCR correctional facilities in general, and measures necessary to promptly detect or respond to mental￾health-related emergencies and injuries. 12 44. The aforementioned customs, policies, and/or practices of Defendants were a direct and legal cause of Drake Terlep’s death and Plaintiff’s injuries. COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL DEATH 45. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 46. Drake Terlep died as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts, omissions, or defaults of Defendants 47. As a direct result of Drake Terlep’s wrongful death, Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary injury, loss of love and affection, including loss of society, companionship, comfort, consortium, or protection, and loss of filial care and attention. 48. Drake Terlep experienced pain, suffering, anguish, fear of impending death, anxiety, emotional distress, and conscious pain and suffering prior to his death. 49. Drake Terlep suffered a loss of future earnings, loss of future benefits, funeral and burial expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, and other special and general damages provided for pursuant to § 663-3, Haw. Rev. Stat., and all other statutes and applicable law. 13 50. Drake Terlep suffered a loss of the enjoyment of life he would have experienced in the future had he not died as a result of the actions and/or failures to act of the Defendants. Thus, pursuant to § 663-7, Haw. Rev. Stat., and all other statutes and applicable law, the Estate of Drake Terlep makes a claim for hedonic damages and/or the loss of enjoyment of the life and seeks to recover for damages described in § 663-7, Haw. Rev. Stat. and all damages available by law. COUNT FIVE CLAIMS AS TO DOE DEFENDANTS 51. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth under this count. 52. Doe Defendants are persons or entities whose wrongful acts and/or omissions in some way proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiffs' injuries in ways presently unknown to Plaintiffs. 53. Doe Defendants are vicariously liable for the negligence of their agents and/or employees through the doctrine of respondeat superior. 54. As a result of the conduct of the Doe Defendants Plaintiffs have suffered the harm and damages alleged herein. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered in their favor, and against Defendants, jointly and severally for general and special damages, together with costs of suit, attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief deemed just and appropriate under the circumstances. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 17, 2025. LAW OFFICES OF MARK GALLAGHER /s/ Mark F. Gallagher MARK F. GALLAGHER Attorney for Plaintiffs 15