United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. MOISE, Plaintiff
HOWARD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al., Defendants
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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)).
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)).
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').
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. ...