United States District Court, D. Maryland
MALCOM M. RYIDU-X, #273-575, Plaintiff
WARDEN DENISE GELSINGER,  LT. CAUDO, SR., SGT. TERRY WINTERS,  SGT. CAULIFLOWER, WARDEN RICHARD DOVEY, SGT. JOSHUA CASTLE, TSAMBA,
CATHERINE C. BLAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
complaint filed July 27, 2016, and construed as a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Malcom M. Ryidu-X
alleged that a fellow prisoner in his housing unit at the
Maryland Correctional Institution - Hagerstown
("MCI-H") had threatened to rape him in the shower
and prison authorities would not disclose the name of the
individual or protect Ryidu-X from the threat. (ECF No. 1).
The Court ordered counsel for the Maryland Division of
Correction to show cause within 21 days why injunctive relief
should not be granted in favor of Ryidu-X. (ECF No. 2).
August 8, 2016, Ryidu-X supplemented his complaint to name
various correctional defendants as well as the prisoner
alleged to have threatened him, "Tshamba." (ECF No.
5). The supplemental complaint, which included no relief
request, was accompanied by a motion for preliminary
injunction to prohibit Tshamba from access to Ryidu-X's
food. (ECF No. 6). Ryidu-X reiterated that
Tshamba remained a threat and that dietary staff continued to
deliver substitute meals to him twice a week because of his
food allergy. He implies that because fellow prisoners are
given unsupervised access to meals prepared for food allergy
sufferers, those like himself with allergies are at undue
risk for food tampering. Ryidu-X stated he started a hunger
strike and filed an Administrative Remedy Procedure
("ARP") complaint in an attempt to get prison
personnel to recognize his food allergy and to keep Tshamba
away from him and his food. Id.
September 2, 2016, the Office of the Maryland Attorney
General responded to both the complaint and the injunctive
relief request. (ECF No. 8.). Ryidu-X was notified that the
response would be construed as a motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 9), and filed an opposition response. (ECF No. 10.).
Ryidu-X also filed a second motion for injunctive relief
asking that Officer Vanorsdale and prisoner Joe Dorsey-who
were not named as Defendants to this action-be barred from
entering the same protective custody unit where he was
housed. (ECF No. 15, p. 1.). Ryidu-X stated that Dorsey spit
on him on March 10, 2017, and Vanorsdale and other officers
refused to verify the incident by reviewing a surveillance
video. (Id., p. 2.). The Court denied the second
injunctive relief request because Ryidu-X was housed on
protective custody, making actual physical contact between
him and Dorsey unlikely to occur. (ECF No. 17, p. 2).
Ryidu-X's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16)
was denied without prejudice. (ECF No. 17, pp. 2-3). In a
separate order, the Court ordered service of process on the
six correctional defendants named in the complaint and its
amendment, and dismissed Tshamba, who was a private person
not amenable to suit under the civil rights statute. (ECF No.
18, p. 2). To date, four correctional defendants, former
Wardens Gelsinger and Dovey, Lt. Castle, and Sgt. Winters,
have been served and have jointly filed a motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 25). That motion, construed as a
motion for summary judgment, is opposed by Ryidu-X. (ECF No.
26). No hearing is necessary to determine the outcome of this
case. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
becomes moot when the issues presented are "no longer
'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable
interest in the outcome." City of Erie v. Pap's
A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (quoting Los Angeles
County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). Where
injunctive or declaratory relief is requested in a
prisoner's complaint, it is possible for events occurring
subsequent to the filing of the complaint to render the
matter moot. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820,
823 (4th Cir. 1991) (transfer of prisoner moots his Eighth
Amendment claims for injunctive and declaratory relief);
see also Slade v. Hampton Rd's Reg'l Jail,
407 F.3d 243, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2005) (pre-trial
detainee's release moots his claim for injunctive
relief); Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th
Cir. 1987) (holding that the transfer of a prisoner rendered
moot his claim for injunctive relief). Ryidu-X's
complaint, as supplemented, solely seeks injunctive relief
requiring the correctional defendants to keep a potential
assailant away from his food and housing unit. This relief
request has been rendered moot, following Ryidu-X's
November, 2017 transfer from MCI-H to the Eastern
Correctional Institution at Westover C'ECI"). (ECF
No. 25, Ex.11)
a separate order shall be entered dismissing the complaint as
moot and closing this case.
 The Clerk shall amend the docket to
reflect Defendant Denise Gelsinger, not Gail Singer, is the
former Warden of the Maryland Correctional Institution at
Hagerstown, as reflected in this caption.
 The Clerk shall amend the docket
to reflect the proper name and title, as reflected in this
caption, for Defendants Winters and Castle.
 Ryidu-X also asked that his
case be stayed pending exhaustion of administrative remedies.
In his supplemental complaint, Ryidu-X alleged Protective
Custody Unit Manager Lt. Caudo and Protective Custody Unit
Supervisor Cauliflower "assigned the inmate who
(plaintiff believes) made the threat of rape . . .to prepare
and to serve the plaintiffs meals (mostly unsupervised) twice
daily . .." Ryidu-X claimed this assignment
"demonstrates a deliberate indifference and actual
malice toward plaintiff." (ECF No. 5 at 6). Ryidu-X
claims he became sick in August of 2015 "after eating
tainted food served by . . . Tshamba" and complained to
unnamed prison officials of "Tshamba's continued
harassment, unauthorized access to his meals by stealing them
from the dietary supervisors to prevent anyone else from
serving these meals" to Ryidu-X. (Id., p. 7).
Ryidu-X expresses concern that Tshamba could have served him
"tainted food or possibly even sedating him in attempts
to carry out his ...