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.

Animashaun v. Kavanagh

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 8, 2017

JACK KAVANAGH, et al., Defendants



         Pending 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.[1] Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be granted.


         As 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 he states:
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.

ECF 33.

         In 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.

         Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF 36) naming Chief E. Scott and Officer K. Small as additional defendants. ECF 36. The ...

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.