United States District Court, D. Maryland
JAMES A. HENSON, JR., Plaintiff
RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., BRADLEY O. BUTLER, J. SMITH, RONALD SHANE WEBER, Defendants
K. BREDAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
above-entitled Complaint was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on December 12, 2016. Plaintiff seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, which shall be granted. For the
reasons set forth below, the Complaint must be dismissed.
who is incarcerated at Western Correctional Institution in
Cumberland, Maryland, asserts that he is the subject of a
“hit” placed upon him by various prison gangs and
that unnamed correctional staff have failed to protect him
from violent inmates. ECF 1, p. 4. He alleges a general
conspiracy among racist staff and inmates to cause him harm.
The only specific information Plaintiff provides is that he
was stabbed by fellow inmate Roy Jenkins in October of 2011.
is well known to the Court. He has filed numerous complaints
alleging a vast conspiracy to cause him harm. The
allegations, repeatedly raised by Henson, have been
repeatedly reviewed and examined by this Court and found to
be without merit based upon declarations submitted by prison
staff and investigators within the Division of Correction
(“DOC”) Internal Investigative Unit
(“IIU”) and Administrative Remedy Procedure
(“ARP”) offices. Henson's mental health
evaluations show him to be suffering from paranoid and
previously filed suit regarding a 2011 assault as well as
allegations concerning Correctional Officers Wilson, Merling,
Lark, and Weber assigning him to a cell with Inmate Jenkins,
an alleged “professed racist.” See Henson v.
Likin, Civil Action No. RWT-11-2719 (D. Md.). Defendants
were granted summary judgment in that case.
previously filed suit against CO II Jesse Lambert, CO II
Nicholas Soltas, CO II Steven Miller, CO II Randolph Bennett,
CO II Christopher Ortt, CO II Joshua Tart, and CO II Shawn
Murray, alleging they assigned him to cells with gang members
and advised gang members on the unit that Plaintiff was a
rapist. He reiterated his claim regarding the assault by
Jenkins and sought protective custody and a federal
investigation. See Henson v. Lambert, Civil Action
No. RWT-12-3271. Defendants were granted summary judgment in
previously filed suit against Lt. Dale Smith, Case Worker
Gainer, Caseworker Sindy, Lt. Miller, Sgt. Iser, Sgt.
Guilliam, and Sgt. Tyndale, again alleging overall failure to
protect, lack of a policy to address risks to Plaintiff's
health and safety, and an overarching conspiracy; this suit
was likewise dismissed. See Henson v. Smith, Civil
Action No. RWT-13-2266 (D. Md.).
previously sued former Warden Frank B. Bishop, Jr., Lt.
William E. Miller, Major Robert M. Friend, Lt. Bradley Wilt,
Sergeant Walter Iser, CO II Jesse L. Lambert, CO II
Christopher Anderson, CO II Nicolas Soltas, and CO II Steven
Miller, alleging that he was the target of a campaign of
murder carried out by correctional staff and specifying an
assault on June 20, 2014. See Henson v. Bishop,
Civil Action No. RDB-14-2131 (D. Md.). Defendants were
granted summary judgment in that case.
Lt. Bradley Wilt, Lt. Thomas Sires, Sgt. Walter Iser, Sgt.
Brian Iames, Sgt. Janet Puffenbarger, CO II Nicholas Soltas,
CO II Cody Gilpin, CO II Steven Miller, CO II Phillip Deist,
CO II David Beachy, CO II Dustin Gursky, and CO II Jason
Frantz were granted summary judgment regarding
Plaintiff's claim that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights by subjecting him to excessive force,
failing to protect him from harm, and failing to provide
medical treatment. He also claimed that Defendants conspired
to have him murdered and placed his life in danger by housing
him with dangerous inmates. See Henson v. Soltas,
Civil Action No. RDB-14-3676 (D. Md.).
judgment was granted for Defendants in Henson v.
Puffenbarger, et al., Civil Action No.
RDB-15-3022, where Plaintiff accused Defendants Sgt. Janet
Puffenbarger, C.O. II Timothy Marchinke, C.O. II Dean Rounds,
Jr., and C.O. II Cody Gilpin of verbally threatening him with
the use of racial epithets and also of using excessive force
against him in August and September of 2015.
judgment was entered for Defendants Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., and Lt. Sawyer in regard to Plaintiff's claim that
Defendants denied him health care and continued to use force
to place him in cells with known violent criminals in order
to cause him harm in retaliation for his filing grievances
and lawsuits. Henson v. Wexford, et al., Civil
Action No. RDB-16-53 (D. Md.).
complaints raising bald conspiracy claims were dismissed
sua sponte by the Court. See Henson v. Wilt, et
al., Civil Action No. RDB-14-3724 (D. Md.); Henson
v. Friend et al., Civil Action No. RDB-14-3825 (D. Md.),
and Henson v. Miller et al., Civil Action No.
RDB-15-28 (D. Md.). Plaintiff's claims of a far reaching
conspiracy have been investigated and found unsubstantiated,
resulting in the dismissal of the claims both
administratively and judicially. See e.g. Henson v.
Likin, Civil Action No. RWT-11-2719 (D. Md.); Henson
v. Miller, Civil Action No. RWT-12-763 (D. Md.);
Henson v. Lambert, Civil Action No. RWT-12-3271 (D.
Md.); Henson v. Smith, et al., Civil Action No.
RWT-13-2266 (D.Md.); Henson v. Bishop, Civil Action
No. RDB-14-2131 (D. Md.) (dismissing for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies but noting affidavits of all
correctional staff that they had not submitted false incident
reports, encouraged the submission of falsified medical
reports, or instructed anyone to house Plaintiff with
violent, dangerous gang members.)
there has been a final judgment on the merits in a prior
suit, an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier
and the later suit, and an identity of parties or their
privies in the two suits, res judicata is
established. See Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v.
Beverley, 404 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005). The
doctrine of res judicata precludes the assertion of
a claim after a judgment on the merits in a prior suit by
parties on the same cause of action. See Meekins v.
United Transp. Union, 946 F.2d 1054, 1057 (4th Cir.
1991). In addition, “'[n]ot only does res judicata
bar claims that were raised and fully litigated, it prevents
litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that
were previously available to the parties, regardless of
whether they were asserted or determined in the prior
proceeding.'” Id. (quoting Peugeot
Motors of America, Inc. v. Eastern Auto Distributors,
Inc., 892 F.2d 355, 359 (4th Cir. 1989)).
Plaintiff's claims regarding the 2011 assault as well as
his claims of a vast conspiracy to cause him harm have
previously been investigated, found unsubstantiated, fully
litigated, and dismissed. He shall not be permitted to
proceed as to those claims again, and his Complaint shall
therefore be dismissed.
complaint shall be dismissed under the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e).See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310,
1315 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951,
954-55 (4th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is reminded that under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be granted in forma
pauperis status if he has "on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is ...