United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
are a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff Ayodeji
Kayode Animashaun (ECF 38), a response in opposition thereto
and cross-motion for summary judgment filed by defendants
Jack Kavanagh, Edward Scott, and Kenyeta Small (ECF 40), as
well as plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. ECF 41.
Plaintiff was informed by the court, pursuant to Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that failure
to file a response in opposition to the motions filed by
defendants could result in dismissal of the complaint. ECF
43. Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition. The court
finds a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons that follow,
plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and appointment
of counsel shall be denied. Defendants' motion for
summary judgment shall be granted.
previously stated by this court in ruling upon
defendants' motion to dismiss:
Animashaun, 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.
Animashaun 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 officer 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.
In his 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 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
Animashaun 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.
light of the foregoing, defendants were directed to provide
plaintiff the duty roster for the date of the incident so
that he could identify the appropriate parties to this case.
ECF 33 & 34. Additionally, the court dismissed
plaintiff's claims regarding denial of medical care and
any state tort claims. Plaintiff's civil rights claims
regarding failure to protect and his assignment to
segregation were permitted to proceed. ECF 33.
filed an amended complaint (ECF 36) naming Chief E. Scott and
Officer K. Small as additional defendants. ECF 36. The ...