United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending and ready for resolution are: (1) a motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Montgomery County Police Department
(“MCPD”) and J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police
(collectively, the “MCPD Defendants”) (ECF No.
6); (2) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Washington
Adventist Hospital, Terry Forde - President and CEO of
Adventist HealthCare, Inc., and Erik Wangsness - President of
Adventist HealthCare Washington Adventist Hospital
(collectively, the “Washington Adventist
Defendants”)(ECF No. 8); (3) a motion to strike filed
by the Washington Adventist Defendants (ECF No. 11); (4) a
motion to amend the complaint by Plaintiff Michael Ayele
(“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 13); (5) a motion to end
modern day slavery filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 20); and (6) a
motion to request video recordings filed by Plaintiff (ECF
No. 22). The issues have been briefed, and the court now
rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6.
For the following reasons, the motion to amend the complaint
will be granted in part and denied in part, the motions to
dismiss will be granted, the motion to end modern day slavery
will be denied, the motion to strike will be denied, and the
motion to request video records will be denied as moot.
filed a previous suit against the Defendants on August 29,
2016, but that case was dismissed without prejudice when
Plaintiff failed to return a court approved motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and complaint. Order Dismissing
Case, Ayele v. Washington Adventist Hosp., No.
PX-16-3011 (D.Md. Oct. 28, 2016) (ECF No. 4). On November 22,
2016, Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the MCPD Defendants, the Washington Adventist
Defendants, and the Maryland Crisis Team,  alleging that
they violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. (ECF No. 1, at 4).
This complaint alleges that Plaintiff was improperly detained
at a McDonald's restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland. He
was taken from the McDonald's to Washington Adventist
Hospital against his will, where he was held for a period of
time. He purports to make a claim pursuant to the Fourth
Amendment. (ECF No. 1).
January 26, 2017, the MCPD Defendants moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 6). On February 1, the
Washington Adventist Defendants moved to dismiss for failure
to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8). On
February 7, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Michael Ayele Analysis and Comments to Judge Peter
Messit[t]e Order: Request for Introduction of a Court
Appointed Lawyer, Communication Technologies, and Jury
Trial.” (ECF No. 10). The document reiterated parts of
the complaint, requested appointment of counsel, and
requested that all court proceedings be recorded and made
available to Plaintiff. On February 24, the Washington
Adventist Defendants moved to strike the document. (ECF No.
11). On May 19, Plaintiff responded to the MCPD
Defendants' motion to dismiss and moved to amend the
complaint. (ECF No. 13). On July 15, an order was issued
denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel
and directing the Washington Adventist Defendants to mail
Plaintiff a copy of their motion to dismiss. The order gave
Plaintiff until August 16 to respond to the motions. (ECF No.
18). On August 25, Plaintiff filed a motion to end modern day
slavery (ECF No. 20), and a motion to request video
recordings of court sessions (ECF No. 22).
motion to amend his complaint contains additional details.
(ECF No. 13). He alleges that police stopped him at the
McDonald's in early August 2015. He alleges that, at that
time, he “was posing no harm to [himself] or
others.” (Id. at 2). The police took him in a
police car to the hospital. It appears he was held at the
hospital pursuant to Maryland's civil commitment
procedure. He alleges that the hospital forced him to take
psychotropic medication. The hospital discharged him sometime
before early November. (Id. at 3-5).
Motion to Amend
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it or within 21 days after service of a
motion under Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1). When the right to amend as a matter of course
expires, “a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) provides
that courts should “freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires, ” and commits the matter to the
discretion of the district court. See Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 769
(4th Cir. 2011). Denial of leave to amend is
appropriate “only when the amendment would be
prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith
on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be
futile.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178
F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in
original) (quoting Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785
F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)).
to amend may be denied as futile “if the proposed
amended complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of the
federal rules, ” including federal pleading standards.
Katyle v. Perm Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471
(4th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States ex rel.
Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370,
376 (4th Cir. 2008)); Oroweat Foods Co.,
785 F.2d at 510 (“Leave to amend, however, should only
be denied on the ground of futility when the proposed
amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its
face.” (citations omitted)). A pleading need not
contain detailed factual allegations, but the plaintiff must
allege enough facts to make the claim appear “plausible
on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007);
see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, denial of
leave to amend is appropriate if the court, taking as true
the allegations of the proposed amended pleading, would be
compelled to dismiss the action. See Kellogg Brown &
Root, 525 F.3d at 376 (affirming the district
court's denial of leave to amend because the
“proposed amended complaint does not properly state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6)”).
motion to amend contains additional facts related to his
initial detention. Based on these facts, the motion requests
additional damages. (ECF No. 13, at 1-5). Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2) mandates that courts “freely give leave”
to amend. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff supplements the
initial complaint with additional facts related to his
detention by MCPD Defendants and the Washington Adventist
Defendants and based on these new facts increases the amount
of damages, his motion to amend will be granted. (ECF No. 13,
motion also requests to add Amanda Street and the Maryland
Department of Health as defendants. In support, Plaintiff
I would like to re-iterate here that I have previously
requested Medical Information and Arrest Reports via postal
mail and e-mail to appropriate channels handling FOIA
questions at the Department of Mental Health and Hygiene
(DHMH) of Maryland, namely Amanda Street . . . . For that
reason, and because of her failure to give [me an] official
position in the form of a letter acknowledging receipt of my
FOIA requests and the reasons for which she was not able to
retrieve requested records, I have decided to add her name in
(ECF No. 13, at 4). Plaintiff has not pled facts that support
a legal claim for relief against Ms. Street and the
Department of Health. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff
seeks to add Amanda Street and the Maryland Department of
Health as defendants, his motion will be denied.
motion also requests to add Springfield Hospital Center and
six of its employees as defendants. (ECF No. 13 at 4-6). The
motion explains that, after he was released from Washington
Adventist Hospital, he was later arrested and charged with
trespass. Apparently, he was taken to Springfield Hospital
Center where the doctors found him incompetent ...