United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
LAMARR D. WILLIAMS, #370-175, Plaintiff,
KATHLEEN GREEN, WARDEN, Defendant.
J. HAZEL United States District Judge
D. Williams, a Maryland Division of Correction
("DOC") prisoner housed at Maryland Correctional
Institution-Jessup ("MCI-J"), filed a
self-represented civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, seeking money damages against Kathleen Green,
the former warden of Eastern Correctional Institution
("ECI"). Williams alleges that while he was
confined at ECI, Green was deliberately indifferent to his
safety, resulting in an August 21, 2015 attack during which
he was stabbed in the neck. ECF No. 1 at 3. Presently pending
is Defendant Green's unopposed Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No.
No hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion, construed as a
Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be granted.
states that during May 2015 he was placed on administrative
segregation "due to numerous threats made on [his]
life." ECF No. 1 at 3. On August 20, 2015, he alleges
that he was placed in a housing unit with known enemies.
Id. He claims that due to his Security Threat Group
("STG") status, he should not have been placed in
that housing unit. Id.
states that on the following morning, August 21, 2015, he was
allegedly ambushed by unnamed assailants and stabbed in the
neck while on the way back from the "chow hall."
ECF No. 1 at 3; ECF No. 21-2 at 17. Williams claims to have
been emotionally traumatized by the incident. ECF No. 1 at
Complaint, Williams acknowledges that he failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. Id. at 2. He states
that he wrote a statement and signed an incident report, and
"was told that would be enough for an
parties agree that Williams has repeatedly expressed concern
for his safety, both before the incident alleged in this
matter, see ECF Nos. 21-2 at 11, and since that
date. See e.g. Id. at 19-20, 21, 22-23, 26-27, 53.
As a result, Williams was moved between various housing units
at ECI, and on occasion placed in administrative segregation
and protective custody. See e.g. Id. at 11-12.
Williams had previously claimed that he was at risk because
he had attempted to disassociate from his STG and feared
retribution, id. 11-12, prison records do not show
that Williams ever reported known enemies to prison
authorities. Id. at 7. Moreover, on August 11, 2015,
Williams advised the correctional staff that he could safely
be housed in Housing Unit 6, id. at 13, which he was
assigned to on August 20, 2015. Id. at 4.
after his assignment to Housing Unit 6, Williams reported
that he had been assaulted and had been told that "if
[he] didn't leave it will be worse next time."
Id. at 17. Medical treatment was provided that
afternoon by Charlotte Townley, RN, who noted a break in his
skin on the back of his neck and a scabbed area. Id.
at 16. No other injuries were noted and RN Townley reported
that Williams denied being in pain. Id.
Williams' medical records reflect no medical attention on
or after August 21, 2015 as a result of the alleged incident.
ECF No. 21-3.
response to Williams' allegations of an assault, an
Administrative Segregation Investigation Report was issued
that same day. Id. at 15. The investigator wrote
that Williams had "a mark on the back of his head"
and that Williams had informed him that he was "STG
'[Gangster's Disciples]' but dropped his flag and
has been moving around ever since." Id. The
investigator recommended that Williams be transferred from
ECI because he had already been placed in several units in
the facility. Id.
August 21, 2015, the same day as the attack, Williams was
moved out of the housing block where the incident occurred
and into Administrative Segregation within ECI. Id.
Williams was eventually transferred from ECI to Roxbury
Correctional Institution (RCI) in April 2016. Id. at
argues that Williams' allegations are insufficient to
state a claim based on supervisory liability, and there is no
42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability under the doctrine of
respondeatsuperior. ECF No. 21-1 at 7-11. She
also argues that Williams did not exhaust his administrative
remedies regarding the incident, submitting in support of
this argument the declaration of Susan Shumaker, Litigation
Coordinator at ECI, who stated that a review of ECF s
Administrative Remedy Procedure ("ARP") index for
August and September confirms that Williams failed to file an