Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
MARK F. GALLAGHER #6016-0
66 Kaiholu Place
Kailua, Hawai`i 96734
Telephone: 808-535-1500
Attorney for Plaintiff
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:
OF DRAKE TERLEP; NORMA TERLEPPANELA; AND THOMAS TERLEP,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI DEPARTMENT OF
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
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 selfharm 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 wellbeing 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
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
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
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 mentalhealth-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
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.
/s/ Mark F. Gallagher
Attorney for Plaintiffs
15