United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar United States District Judge
are Motions to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motions for
Summary Judgment, filed on behalf of defendant Director Jack
Kavanaugh. ECF 15 & 27. Plaintiff Ayodeji Kayode
Animashaun has responded. ECF 17,  26, 29, 31. Defendant has
replied. ECF 30. Upon review of papers and exhibits filed,
the court finds an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons
stated below, the dispositive motions will be granted in part
and denied in part.
who is a United States Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee, filed a
self-represented complaint, in which he alleges that on May
29, 2014, while housed at the Howard County Detention Center
awaiting removal proceedings, he was attacked by another
detainee. Animashaun indicates that the assault could have
been prevented because he communicated the threat of harm to
correctional staff via the in-house intercom prior to the
assault. ECF 1, p. 3. Animashaun further states that the
officer who responded to his call for help failed to alert
other officers of the attack and made no attempt to protect
Animashaun from harm. Id. Animashaun states that
“due to the negligence of the correction officer”
he was assaulted by another detainee and strangled almost to
the point of death. Id., p. 4. Animashaun states
that the assault lasted over eight minutes and was stopped
after corrections officers stumbled upon the scene while
performing rounds. Thereafter, Animashaun was kept on
administrative segregation until October 1, 2014, when he was
transferred to another facility. While housed on segregation,
Animashaun was prevented “from seeking legal action in
his case.” Id. He states that he required eye
surgery as a result of the attack and that his injuries were
occasioned “due to the negligence of the staff at the
Howard County Detention Center.” Id.
filed a supplemental complaint, after receipt of
defendant’s dispositive motion. ECF 20. In the
supplemental complaint, Animashaun names “Officer Jane
Doe” as the sole defendant. He states:
Officer Jane Doe was working the 4pm-12 midnight shift at the
Howard County Detention Center on May 29, 2014. Officer Jane
Doe was informed by the Plaintiff of an imminent threat of
assault via H.C.D.C. unit W.6 intercom. Officer Jane Doe
failed to alert officers to unit W.6 to protect plaintiff
from the assault. Officer Jane Doe’s negligent actions
caused the plaintiff to suffer a felonious assault which
caused him severe injuries requiring eye surgery.
ECF 20, p. 3.
second supplemental complaint (ECF 24), Animashaun
specifically invoked the civil rights act as the basis for
his action and named Jack Kavanagh, Facility Director for the
Howard County Detention Center and Jane Doe as defendants.
ECF 24, p. 3. In support of his second supplemental complaint
On May 29, 2014 on unit W-6 of the H.C.D.C., under the direct
supervision of the Facility Director Jack Kavanagh and
Officer Jane Doe, plaintiff suffered severe injuries to his
body, and mainly his eye after being the victim of a
felonious assault. This felonious assault was perpetrated by
another detainee housed on unit W-6 in the H.C.D.C. The
assault which was preventable, occurred due to the negligence
of the defendants. The entire incident of assault was
recorded on H.C.D.C. Unit W-6 surveillance video camera
(archived H.C.D.C. video file: W6fight5292014).
Id., p. 4.
indicates that he advances three separate claims. His first
claim concerns the previously raised allegations that
correctional staff failed to protect him from a known risk of
harm. Id. His second claim concerns his assignment
for five months to administrative segregation after the
assault where he states he was locked in a cell for 22 hours
each day. Id., pp. 5-6. Lastly, Animashaun claims
that after he was transferred from the HCDC to a facility in
New York, he was advised that the injury to his eye required
surgical repair. Id., p. 6.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “[a] party
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion
under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”
F.R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). Rule 15 dictates that “[t]he court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Although Animashaun did not seek leave
to amend his complaint, leave is to be generously granted and
defendant has not opposed the amendments.
maintains that the case must be dismissed as Animashaun fails
to state a civil rights claim, alleging nothing more than a
common law negligence claim. ECF 15-1, p. 5l; ECF 27-1.
Defendant further indicates that Animashaun failed to comply
with the Local Government Tort Claims Act and therefore
cannot maintain a negligence claim. ECF 15-2. Moreover,