United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL United States District Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff Dennis Hill's Complaint
seeking injunctive relief against certain employees of the
Montgomery County Correctional Facility. ECF No. 1. The
Office of the Montgomery County Attorney has filed a
Court-directed response, which has been supplemented. ECF
Nos. 4 & 7. Plaintiff has replied. ECF Nos. 5 & 6.
These issues have been fully briefed and a hearing is
unnecessary. Foe. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons
that follow. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief shall
be denied and the Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
a pretrial detainee then confined at the Montgomery County
Correctional Facility ("MCCF"). Filed
correspondence with the Court which was construed as a civil
rights complaint against Susan K. Malagori. Warden of MCCF.
Dr. Howell, and Anthony Sturgis. Medical Director of MCCF.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that he is suffering from a
"critical, life-threatening medical condition." ECF
No. 1 at 1. He indicates that prior to his incarceration he
consulted with a cardiothoraeic surgeon who indicated he
required immediate surgery or he would die. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to move forward with
treatment of his condition but rather told him to "wail
and see what happens." Id.
of Affidavit. Plaintiff indicates that on October 19, 2016.
he was taken to the Washington Adventist Hospital (WAN) for
examination and diagnostic testing. ECF No. 3 at 1. The
testing was done by Dr. Ali. who admitted Plaintiff to the
hospital immediately due to the "extensive, critical and
life threatening damage, revealed by the procedure."
id. at 1-2. Dr. Ali. and Dr. Ijaz. consultants for
MCCF, also consulted with Dr. Kathleen Petro. a
cardiovascular surgeon. Id. at 2. The doctors
described the severity of Plaintiffs condition and provided a
treatment plan. Id. Plaintiff indicates that the
doctors agreed that the damage was "critical,
life-threatening, and should be treated by surgery
immediately." Id. Plaintiff also notes that Dr.
Petro indicated that the facilities at WAH were inadequate.
Id. Dr. Petro recommended that the surgery take
place at INOVA Fairfax Hospital in Virginia, where the proper
team and facilities were available. Id. at 3. Dr.
Petro offered to begin the process to have Plaintiff
transported to INOVA Fairfax. Id. Plaintiff states
that Dr. Petro stressed that the treatment and surgery were
critical and time-sensitive, and that prolonging the
decision-making process would compound the damage.
states that Defendants refused to transport him out of state
for treatment. Id. at 4. Plaintiff states that later
that day he suffered another heart attack. Id. lie
was transferred to Prince George's Medical Center, where
lie was kept for observation for three weeks. Id.
However. Plaintiff indicates that he received no corrective
treatment for his blocked arteries and veins or for the tear
in the "valve." Id. Plaintiff states that
Defendants do not plan to seek any treatment or surgery for
him. indicating instead that they intend to "wait and
see what happens." Id. at 5.
their response to the request for emergeney injunctive
relief, counsel for the MCCF indicates that on August 19.
2016. Plaintiff was initially processed at the Montgomery
County Detention Center. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 4. During his
initial medical screening. Plaintiff reported a history of
several medical diagnoses and indicated that he was recently
hospitalized for a defibrillator and pace maker implantation,
id. ¶ 5: ECF No. 4-2 at 3. Medical staff
obtained documentation from Anne Arundel Medical Center
indicating Plaintiff suffers from: 1) coronary artery
disease: 2) chest pain: 3) chronic systolic congestive heart
failure: 4) essential hypertension: 5) history of DVT; and 6)
Type II diabetes mcllitus. ECF No. 4-2 at 6.
August 22. 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to MCCF to be
housed on the specialized medical unit. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 6.
Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Robert Younes on September 7.
2016. due to complaints of chest pain. hi. Dr.
Younes ordered an expedited cardiology consult. id.
was seen by Dr. Mohsin Ijaz. a cardiologist, on September 12.
2016. id. ¶ 7; ECF No. 4-3 at 4. Dr. Ijaz
recommended medication changes, lab tests, a stress test, and
a defibrillator evaluation. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 7: ECF No. 4-3
at 4. Dr. Ijaz also recommended that Plaintiff follow up with
him in 1-2 weeks. ECF No. 4-1 <| 7: ECF No. 4-3 at 4.
was evaluated by Dr. Younes on September 19, 2016. after
which Dr. Younes recommended Plaintiff be transported to Holy
Cross Germantown Hospital. ECF No. 4 at 3; ECF No. 4-1 ¶
7. Plaintiff remained at the hospital until September 22,
2016. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 7.
September 27. 2016. Plaintiff was again evaluated by Dr. Ijaz
and underwent a stress test evaluation without complications.
ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 7: ECF No. 4-3 at 3. Dr. Ijaz saw
Plaintiff again on October 4. 2016, and recommended that a
cardiac catheterization be scheduled within 1-2 weeks. FCF
No. 4-1 ¶ 7; ECF No. 4-3 at 4.
October 20. 2016. Plaintiff was sent to WAH for the cardiac
catheterization procedure. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 8: ECF No. 4-4.
The catheterization was performed by Dr. AH. ECF No. 4-1
¶ 8: ECF No. 4-4. Dr. Ali recommended Plaintiff be
referred for coronary artery bypass graphing (CABG) and
mitral valve annuloplasty (MVA). ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 8: ECF
No. 4-4 at 1. Plaintiff was subsequently evaluated by Dr.
Kathleen Pctro. who indicated that due to Plaintiffs high
risk status, the surgery could not be performed at WAH. ECF
No. 4-1 ¶ 8: ECF No. 4-5 at 2.
was transferred to Prince George's County Hospital on
October 21. 2016. to be evaluated by Dr. James Brown, a
cardiothoracic surgeon. ECF No. 4-1 ¶ 8: FCF No. 4-5 at
1. Plaintiff remained at Prince George's County Hospital
until November 10. 2016. FCF No. 4-1 ¶ 8: FCF No. 4-5 at
November 8. 2016. Plaintiff was sent to the University of
Maryland Hospital for a viability study. ECF No. 4-1 ¶
8: ECF No. 4-5 at 10-12: ECF 4-6 at 15. The results of the
study were discussed among the physicians, including Dr.
Brown, who determined Plaintiff was not a candidate for
DABG/MVA. FCF No. 4-1 ¶ 8: ECF No. 4-5 at 13. Dr. Brown
determined that Plaintiff was not a viable candidate for
surgical revascularization ...