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.

Young-Bey v. Miller

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 28, 2018

JEFFREY YOUNG-BEY, Plaintiff
v.
RICHARD MILLER, et al, Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          JAMES K. BREDAR, CHIEF JUDGE

         Pending is a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Warden Richard E. Miller, Former Commissioner Wayne Webb, Security Chief Todd Faith, Lieutenant Mark Cutter, and Lieutenant Dave Appel.[1] ECF 20. Plaintiff was informed by the court, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that the failure to file a response in opposition to the motion filed by defendants could result in dismissal of the complaint. ECF 22. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Upon review of the papers and exhibits filed, the court finds an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be GRANTED.

         I. Background

         A. Plaintiffs allegations

         The case was instituted upon receipt of a complaint filed by plaintiff Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, a former state inmate. ECF 1. Plaintiff states that on September 30, 2016, Officer Cutter ordered Officer Thomas to confiscate all of his personal and legal property and directed he be placed on administrative segregation. ECF 1 at p. 3. Plaintiff was not provided with a confiscation form or property inventory. Id. Later that day, plaintiff was served with a "Notice of Assignment to Administrative Segregation," which indicated he would be seen by his case management team within five days and would be given an opportunity to be heard regarding his assignment and retention on administrative segregation. Id. The only information provided regarding his assignment to administrative segregation was that "an investigation [was] pending in his case." Id.

         On October 5, 2016, plaintiff appeared before Cutter and other unidentified people but was not provided an opportunity to be heard regarding his assignment. Cutter refused to explain why plaintiff was placed on administrative segregation and refused to return plaintiffs property or provide him a receipt for the items. ECF 1 at pp. 3-4.

         Plaintiff also alleged that from September 30, 2016, to the signing of his complaint on October 7, 2016, he was not provided a change of clothes, clean linens, hygiene items, a clean mattress, blankets, his medically prescribed diet, or prescribed medications. ECF 1 at p. 4.

         Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: 1. Failure to Protect; 2. Failure to Supervise and Train; 3. Cruel and Unusual Punishment; 4. Denial and Interference with Access to Court; and 5. Denial of Due Process. ECF 1 at pp. 5-9. He seeks a declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $7, 500, 000.

         B. Defendants' Response

         Lt. David Appel and Lt. Mark Cutter advise that they participated in an investigation conducted at Roxbury Correctional Institution (RCI) involving plaintiff and other inmates who were believed to be extorting commissary from the special needs inmates in their housing unit. ECF 20-3, ¶ 3 (Appel Deck); ECF 20-4, ¶ 3 (Cutter Decl). The investigation was connected to an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on one of the inmates suspected in the extortion. Id. In conjunction with the investigation and in order to determine whether there was any evidence plaintiff was involved in the extortion, Appel directed plaintiffs cell be searched and his property confiscated. ECF 20-3, ¶ 4; ECF 20-4, ¶ 4. The investigation also sought to determine whether plaintiff was holding any paperwork for the inmate that was involved in the FBI investigation. Id. As a result of the investigation, plaintiff was placed on administrative segregation and moved to housing unit five. ECF 20-3, ¶ 5; ECF 20-5. Once the investigators searched plaintiffs property, it was placed back in the cart in which they had received it and locked. ECF 20-3, ¶ 6; ECF 20-4, ¶ 6. The cart was then taken to plaintiffs housing unit so that it could be inventoried and the property returned to plaintiff. Id. Appel and Cutter each deny keeping any property placed in the cart. ECF 20-3, ¶ 7; ECF 20-4, ¶ 7. On November 1, 2016, plaintiff was cleared of the extortion accusation, removed from administrative segregation, and returned to general population. ECF 20-3, ¶ 8; ECF 20-4, ¶ 8; ECF 20-8 at p. 2 (Notification of Case Management Action).

         Todd Faith, Chief of Security at RCI, avers that property confiscated due to an investigation is managed in accordance with agency directive IIU 220.0002, 220.0004 and RCI Directive 220.0004.1.[2] ECF 20-7, ¶ 3 (Faith Deck). Inmates assigned to administrative segregation are placed there in accordance with the Case Management Manual and are provided personal property in accordance with adopted policies. Id., ¶ 4. Faith offers that staff are periodically trained on the proper procedures for placement of an inmate on Administrative Segregation and the procedures regarding inmate property. Id., ¶5. He further avers that each officer is certified annually by the "Training Commission." Id. He does not explain what the Training Commission is.

         Defendants have provided copies of plaintiff s pertinent medical records. ECF 20-6. On September 30, 2016, he was evaluated by medical staff who cleared him for placement on segregation. ECF 20-6 at p. 5. A "Behavioral Health Segregation Visit" note was entered on October 5, 2016, which indicated, among other things, that plaintiffs mental health status was unremarkable and that he would be continued on segregation pending the outcome of the investigation. Id. at p. 6. He was evaluated on October 11, 2016, by Nurse Practitioner Christine Coble. Id. at p. 7. At that time, plaintiff reported he was compliant with prescribed medication and denied any side effects. He expressed frustration with being placed on administrative segregation without explanation. Id. at p. 7. His prescription for Prozac was continued and he was provided a short term prescription for Vistaril, as needed, "for adjustment to seg." Id. On October 31, 2016, he was seen for another "Behavioral Health Segregation Visit." Id. at p. 11. His mental health status was appropriate and unremarkable. Id. It was noted that he was to be removed from administrative segregation as the investigation was complete. Id. Plaintiff was next seen by medical staff November 7, 2016, for a scheduled chronic care visit. Id. at pp. 12-14. No. new medical concerns were noted, his medications were continued, and he was scheduled to return to the clinic in three months. Id.

         II. Standard of Review

         A. ...


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.