United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. RUSSELL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
response to this Court's April 19, 2017 Order directing
Hogan to supplement his claims regarding the conditions of
his confinement in the Carroll County Detention Center, Hogan
filed a Supplemental Complaint using a "Motion"
form designed for use in Maryland state courts. (ECF No. 4).
In Hogan's Supplemental Complaint, he alleges that Dr.
Herman,  a psychiatrist at Carroll County Detention
Center, violated his constitutional rights. For the reasons
that follow, the Complaint as supplemented must be dismissed.
states that after a noose was found in his cell, which he
claims other inmates planted there, he was put on suicide
watch where he was forced to remain in a cell with a bright
light burning twenty-four hours a day. (Suppl. Comp. at 6,
ECF No. 4). He claims that if a psychiatrist other than Dr.
Herman met with him and recommended his removal from suicide
watch, Dr. Herman would override it. (Id.). Hogan
further claims that Dr. Herman never talked to him about
suicidal thoughts, but only discussed matters related to his
criminal case when meeting with Hogan. (Id.). Hogan
asked a member of the treatment team "in
confidence" how to get off of suicide watch, and he
claims he was told that he needed to "refuse to meet
with [Dr.] Herman." (Id.). Hogan states that he
took this advice and was released from suicide watch on April
16, 2014 "after five weeks on suicide watch
conditions." (Id.). Hogan asserts, in a
conclusory fashion, that long-term suicide watch is a form of
torture used on prisoners of war. (Id.).
constitutional protections afforded a pretrial detainee as
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment are co-extensive with
those provided by the Eighth Amendment. See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Due process rights of
a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the Eighth
Amendment protections available to the convicted prisoner.
Hill v. Nicodemus. 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992)
(citing Martin v. Gentile. 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th
Cir. 1988)); see also Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d
1159, 1167 (4th Cir. 1997) (pretrial detainee's
Fourteenth Amendment right with respect to excessive force is
similar to prisoner's Eighth Amendment right; both
require more than de minimus injury).
due process proscribes punishment of a detainee before proper
adjudication of guilt, the inquiry with respect to the
conditions alleged is whether or not those conditions amount
to punishment of the pretrial detainee. Bell, 441
U.S. at 535. "[N]ot every inconvenience that is
encountered during pre-trial detention amounts to punishment
in the constitutional sense." Martin, 849 F.2d
at 870. A particular restriction or condition of confinement
amounts to unconstitutional punishment in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment if it is imposed by prison officials
with the express intent to punish or it is not reasonably
related to a legitimate, nonpunitive goal. Bell, 441
U.S. at 538-39 (restrictions or conditions that are arbitrary
or purposeless may be considered punishment). In determining
whether the challenged conditions amount to punishment, it is
not the province of this Court to determine how a particular
prison might be more beneficently operated; the expertise of
prison officials must be given its due deference. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995).
Hogan was found in possession of a noose, a common tool used
to commit suicide. A legitimate, nonpunitive goal exists
where, as here, there is an objective reason for concern that
a detainee may be contemplating self-harm. Taking no action
in light of the discovery of the noose puts both psychiatric
staff and correctional staff at risk for civil liability. As
a prisoner, Hogan "is entitled to psychological or
psychiatric treatment if a physician or other health care
provider, exercising ordinary skill and care at the time of
the observation, concludes with reasonable medical certainty
(1) that the prisoner's symptoms evidence a serious
disease or injury; (2) that such disease or injury is curable
or may be substantially alleviated; and (3) that the
potential for harm to the prisoner by reason of delay or the
denial of care would be substantial." Bowring v.
Goodwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977). Hogan's
disagreement with Dr. Herman's decisions to keep him on
suicide watch is not a basis for finding a constitutional
rights violation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (disagreements between inmate and
doctor regarding care does not state a constitutional claim).
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted as to the sole remaining Defendant, Dr. Herman.
Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed. A separate
Order which follows, Entered this 22nd day of September,
 The Clerk will be directed to add Dr.
Herman as a Defendant on the docket. Hogan does not provide