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.

Moise v. Howard County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 5, 2019

RICHARD D. MOISE, Plaintiff
v.
HOWARD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al., Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The pro se Plaintiff Richard D. Moise filed the above-captioned civil rights action alleging a variety of claims against correctional staff at Howard County Detention Center. ECF No. I. Defendants[1] filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 22) and Defendants have filed a reply (ECF No. 23). The matter is now ripe for review. The Court finds a hearing in these matters unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, despite liberally construing Plaintiffs submissions, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Defendants" dispositive Motion IS GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs Complaint is a laundry list of seemingly unrelated grievances which he claims occurred while he was incarcerated at the Howard County Detention Center ("HCDC" ECF No. 1.

         He indicates that on November 18, 2017, he submitted an inmate grievance alleging he was denied access to the law library. ECF No. I at p. 3. On January 31, 2018, Janine Jackson denied Plaintiff access to the law library and advised him that he would not attend the law library so long as she was working there. Plaintiff states that this also occurred on February 9, 2018, December 21, 2017, and December 30, 2017. Id. He claims that this ''hindered [him] from filing meritorious claims to the court to fight [his] criminal case." Id.

         On November 19, 2018, he submitted a grievance alleging that he was not provided clean living quarters. Plaintiff claims that he advised Officer Watkins that the showers had not been sanitized for days and that Watkins took his grievance but did not provide him a receipt. Id.

         Plaintiff baldly alleges that on various dates in November of 2017 and January of 2018 he was denied: clean housing, a meritorious Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) claim and his legal and personal mail. Plaintiff attempted to clarify his claims in his opposition response. ECF 22. For example. Plaintiff indicates that HCDC staff member Darrell Morant sexually harassed him and left him locked inside a shower which exposed Plaintiff to the entire housing unit for 30 minutes. ECF No. 22 at p. 2-3. Plaintiff reported the conduct to the HCDC PREA coordinator but was denied relief Id. At p.3.

         He also explains that when he was transferred to HCDC he was placed on suicide watch by unnamed mental health professionals. ECF 22 at p. 3. He was placed in a holding cell that had no privacy and was forced sleep on the floor. Id. He states that the cell had no bathroom and he was denied use of the bathroom when officers were "too busy." Id. Plaintiff complains that over several days he was forced to sleep without a mattress or in the booking area, and that when he was eventually moved to medical housing the cell was unclean. Id. at p. 4. He alleges that being forced to sleep on the flor and/or without a mattress caused him physical injury, emotional distress, and caused his skin to break out in rashes resulting in permanent damage to his skin. Id. On an unspecified date he was moved to administrative segregation where again he claims the cell was dirty, the toilet was covered with urine, and the mattress and sheets were dirty. He alleges that he was denied cleaning supplies by unidentified officers. Id.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Defendants the Howard County Detention Center, Jack Kavanagh, Director of Howard County's Department of Corrections, Janine Jackson and Darnell Morant move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 17. In reviewing a complaint in light ofa Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 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(4thCir.2005)(citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F. 1130, 1134(4thCir. 1993)); Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Int 7 Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325-26 (4th Cir. 200I); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002) (stating that a complaint need only satisfy the "simplified pleading standard" of Rule 8(a)).

         The Supreme Court of the United States explained a "plaintiffs obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusion,, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Ml. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Nonetheless, the complaint does not need "detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 555, Instead, "once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complain.." Id. at 563. 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, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "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." Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678. "But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' 'that the pleader is entitled to relief/" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complain.." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 (citing Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology. Inc., 40 F.3d, 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)) (once a claim for relief has been stated, a plaintiff' receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint').

         Although courts should construe pleadings of self-represented litigants liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), legal conclusions or conclusory statements do not suffice, Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678. The Court must examine the complaint as a whole, consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Albright v. ...


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.