United States District Court, D. Maryland
ERROL D. FULFORD-EL, Plaintiff,
WARDEN OF BALTIMORE CENTRAL BOOKING & INTAKE Defendant.
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14, 2017, the Court received for filing Errol D.
Fulford-El's civil rights Complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Counsel for Defendant has filed a Motion
to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 11.
Fulford-El, who has been released from confinement,
not filed an Opposition. No. hearing is needed to resolve the
question as to whether Fulford-El is entitled to relief in
this case. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
states he was detained at the Baltimore Central Booking and
Intake Center ("BCBIC") in 2017. He claims that on
May 6, 2017, he was placed in "5 North Mental
Health-lCell 71 A" and was stripped and placed in
isolation with another naked detainee. Fulford-El alleges
that he was so housed for seven days. He asserts that
"continuously" at night his naked cellmate stood
close to his bed. Fulford-El states that when he complained
about being double-celled naked with another detainee, he was
informed by physicians that "this was there [sic]
policy." ECF No. 1, pp. 2-3 Fulford-El avers that he was
placed on suicide watch for his depression and was held there
for 31 days. He further complains that he was denied legal
mail sent by the federal court in a previous civil rights
matter, which was dismissed for the failure to file a
court-ordered supplemental complaint. Fulford-El asserts that
he did not receive the Court Order requiring him to
supplement and only became aware of the dismissal on June 26,
2017. He further asserts that he was denied pen and paper to
write to the Court. ECF No. 1, p. 3.
next claims he was denied toothpaste, a toothbrush, a wash
cloth, soap, and towels, and had no out-of-cell recreation,
but one hour for 31 days. He alleges that his cell light was
kept on for 24 hours a day and he could not sleep. ECF No. 1,
maintains he was denied proper medical treatment for a broken
hand that was injured when he was arrested. He claims he was
given Motrin, his right hand was x-rayed and broken in 5
places, has now healed in a deformed manner, and he still
feels pain. Id. He also complains that he is
allergic to soybean and soy byproducts and BCBIC refuses to
stay within his medical diet. Id.
Fulford-El complains there is no legal library and he cannot
order law books to conduct research. Id.
seeks punitive and monetary relief, as well as injunctive
relief to be transferred to another prison facility.
Id., p. 4.
Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, submitted with
exhibits, Acting BCBIC Warden Dionne Randolph argues that the
Complaint should be dismissed as: (1) Fulford-El failed to
fully exhaust the administrative remedy procedure (ARP)
grievance process available to detainees at BCBIC as required
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § l997e; (2) Randolph had no
personal involvement, giving rise to her liability under
42U.S.C. § 1983; (3) Randolph is immune from liability
under the Eleventh Amendment for actions taken in her
official capacity; and (4) Randolph is entitled to qualified
immunity. ECF No. 11. Defendant further maintains that
Fulford-El's request for injunctive relief should be
dismissed as moot as he has been released from detention.
Judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) which provides
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any
factual dispute will defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere
existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment; the requirement is ...