United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Gary Moore, presently incarcerated at the
North BraNch Correctional Institution (“NBCI”) in
Cumberland, Maryland, brings this civil action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Frank B. Bishop, Warden
of NBCI. See ECF No. 1. Through the Complaint filed
on September 18, 2017, and supplemented on October 19, 2017,
and October 20, 2017, Moore alleges that Defendant is
“forcing” him into a “dangerous and risky
environment” in violation of his constitutional rights.
Id.; ECF Nos. 4 & 6. He seeks $250, 000 in
monetary damages and requests that he be placed in protective
custody. ECF No. 4, pp. 5 & 7.
February 14, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 14.
Moore filed a response on February 28, 2018. ECF No. 16.
After review of the record, exhibits, and applicable law, the
Court deems a hearing unnecessary. See Local Rule
105.6 (D. Md. 2016). Defendant's Motion shall be
construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment and shall be
states that while housed at NBCI, he has refused to enter the
general population “due to the extreme violence.”
ECF No. 4, p. 1. Specifically, he alleges that he is a
“civilian amongst an infested prison of gang members
that are likely to target him for his solo status.”
Id. at p. 5. Moore claims that, in response, the
NBCI staff has placed him in disciplinary segregation for
over seven months. Id. at p. 1. He alleges that the
institution has responded this way because there is no
specific prisoner threatening him. Id.
August 21, 2017, Moore sought relief through the
Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”). ECF No.
4-1. In his ARP request, Moore alleged that there had been
constant stabbings, assaults, and murders at NBCI since his
incarceration. Id. at p. 3. According to Moore, the
Defendant is aware of the serious crimes being committed. ECF
No. 4 at p. 4. He thus sought to be placed in protective
custody. ECF No. 4-1, p. 3. On August 28, 2017, Moore's
ARP request was dismissed for procedural reasons, as inmates
are not permitted to seek relief through ARP regarding Case
Management recommendations and decisions. Id.
notes that Moore has one verified enemy at NBCI, inmate
Maurice B. Stewart. ECF No. 14-2. Both Moore and Stewart are
housed in Housing Unit 1-C, which is a disciplinary
segregation tier. See ECF No. 14-3. While housed on
disciplinary segregation, inmates are separated from general
population. Id. at ¶4. When a disciplinary
segregation inmate is removed from his cell, he is handcuffed
and escorted by an officer. Id. Further, when
inmates on disciplinary segregation are enemies, correctional
officers will not allow them to come into contact with one
another even when they are being escorted. Id.
American Correctional Association (“ACA”) has
accredited NBCI since January 23, 2017. ECF No. 14-5 at
¶3. An ACA audit was conducted from 2014-2017.
Id. at ¶4. According to Defendant, an ACA audit
involves assessments that cover issues and concerns that
affect the quality of life at a facility such as staff
training, adequacy of medical and mental health services,
sanitation, use of segregation and detention, incidents of
violence, crowding, offender activity levels, programs, and
provision of basic services that may impact the life, safety,
and health of inmates, as well as staff. Id. at
¶3. The ACA audit is a rigorous peer review process
based on national standards. Id.
Motion to Dismiss
reviewing a complaint in light of a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts all well-pleaded
allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts
and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Venkatraman v. REI Sys.,
Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005); Ibarra v.
United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). To
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although
courts should construe pleadings of self-represented
litigants liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), unsupported legal conclusions, Revene v.
Charles Cty. Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir.
1989), and conclusional factual allegations devoid of any
reference to actual events, do not suffice, United Black
Firefighters of Norfolk v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th
Motion for Summary Judgment
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), “[t]he 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 court
should “view the evidence in the light most favorable
to . . . the nonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in
her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the
witnesses' credibility.” Dennis v.
Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr.,
Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002). 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 ...