Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

El-Amin v. Kavanagh

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 20, 2014

JACK KAVANAGH, et al., Defendants.


CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.

Pending is defendants' motion to dismiss[1] the above-captioned civil rights complaint. ECF 18. Plaintiff[2] was advised of his right to file an opposition response to defendants' motion and of the consequences of failing to do so (ECF 20), but has failed to oppose the motion. The court finds a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons stated below, the complaint shall be dismissed.


At all times relevant to this case plaintiff M. Abdullah El-Amin was an inmate committed to the custody of the Howard County Department of Corrections and was housed in the Howard County Detention Center.[3] He alleges that defendant Keefe Commissary Network Sales[4] "is engaged in monopolizing in trade and commerce" at the detention center as well as in "several states." ECF 1 at p. 10. He claims Keefe engages in price fixing and price discrimination for the goods and services provided to inmates at the detention center. He states the prices and fees charged are "so exorbitant... they fall far outside the scope of what the law allows" and amount to racketeering and wire fraud. Id. As examples plaintiff states that inmates are charged as much as three to four times the retail value for commissary items and "nearly a nine dollar fee to electronically transfer fifty dollars." Id. Plaintiff alleges these practices allow Keefe and "others in collusion with them[5]" to profit at the expense of the prison population in "violation of their rights as institutionalized persons to be free from oppression and exploitation." Id.

Plaintiff also asserts that "correctional officials" discriminate against the Muslim inmate population by prohibiting them from wearing medals and prayer caps while allowing Christian inmates to wear religious items such as a cross or rosary. ECF 1 at p. 12. Plaintiff states that Muslims also are denied "accurate portions of food as a pre-dawn meal" and for the meal following sunset, during Ramadan. He further states that Muslims do not receive a hot meal on most of the days during the month-long religious observance. Plaintiff claims that while Muslims engage in congregate worship in the detention center housing unit, correctional officers disrupt the proceedings by walking through and over the prayer lines. He states the officers refrain from this practice when Christians are engaged in congregate worship. Plaintiff further alleges that Muslim inmates are threatened by school and program officials with being removed from work or school if they choose to attend their mandatory Friday congregate worship. Plaintiff claims this is due to the fact that there are no clear and precise rules regarding: (1) Muslims wearing religious medals or prayer caps; (2) distribution of meals to Muslims during Ramadan; congregate worship for Muslims; and (4) Muslim observance of Friday Jum'ah prayer services. ECF 1 at pp. 12-13.

Plaintiff also claims that outgoing legal mail is required to be left open so it can be censored and that mailroom staff refuses to deliver incoming mail on the day it arrives. ECF 1 at p. 13. He alleges that outgoing mail placed in the institutional mail box sometimes is not sent out of the institution for five to ten days. Id. In addition, plaintiff asserts that inmates are denied access to the court because inmates are not allowed to use the three computers and printers in the library to type and print "petitions with the court." Id.

With respect to disciplinary proceedings, plaintiff claims the inmates are not afforded due process during hearings to determine their guilt or innocence of disciplinary rule violations. He alleges that often inmates are not called for the disciplinary hearing on charges for five to ten days. He claims that during the time an inmate is forced to wait for a hearing the officers conspire with each other to change the date of alleged rule violations "to meet their needs and convenience." ECF 1 at p. 14. Plaintiff asserts the delay in providing disciplinary hearings permits officers to "get their heads together and conspire to violate the inmates' rights." Id. He further alleges that any attempts to "get any justice" by filing a grievance is futile because the grievances are declared meritless and the inmate usually is given another disciplinary infraction for filing a false report. Id.

Standard of Review

In reviewing the complaint in light of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005); Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that a "plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Nonetheless, the complaint does not need "detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. Instead, "once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Id. at 563. Thus, a complaint need only state "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.


Defendant Kavanagh moves to dismiss the complaint because: (1) plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim that plaintiff's constitutional or statutory rights were violated; and (3) there is nothing in the complaint establishing defendant's personal participation in any alleged wrongdoing. ECF 18.

The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act provides, in pertinent part:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.