Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fulford-El v. Warden of Baltimore Central Booking & Intake

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 16, 2018

ERROL D. FULFORD-EL, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN OF BALTIMORE CENTRAL BOOKING & INTAKE Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On July 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.[1] ECF No. 11. Fulford-El, who has been released from confinement, [2] has not filed an Opposition.[3] 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).

         Factual Background

         Fulford-El 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.

         Fulford-El 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, p. *.

         Fulford-El 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.

         Finally, Fulford-El complains there is no legal library and he cannot order law books to conduct research. Id.

         Fulford-El seeks punitive and monetary relief, as well as injunctive relief to be transferred to another prison facility. Id., p. 4.

         In her 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.

         Standard of Review

         Summary Judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) which provides that:

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.

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.