United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. RUSSELL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Lieutenant Smith,
Sergeant Daddysman, Officer E. Niland,  and Officer
Lee's (collectively, “WCI Defendants”) Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). The Motion is ripe for disposition,
and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6
(D.Md. 2018). For the reasons outlined below, the Court will
grant the Motion.
Marvin Jones is incarcerated at Western Correctional
Institution (“WCI”) in Cumberland, Maryland.
(Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1). In 2011, “an incident took
place” between Jones and Officer Scarpelli, a
corrections officer at WCI. (Id. at 2; see
also Aug. 27, 2018 Correspondence, ECF No. 16). As a
result, Jones was place in segregation, and was ultimate
transferred out of WCI. (Compl. at 2). Seven years later,
Jones was transferred back to WCI. (Id. at 3). Since
his return to WCI, gang members have robbed him, he
“robbed them back, ” and they “put [a]
murder for hire [contract] out on [his] life.”
(Id.). Jones told “staff” at WCI that he
cannot be safely housed in Maryland. Instead of addressing
Jones's concerns, WCI staff placed him in cells with gang
members that he is “at odds with.”
(Id.). Jones also is “not being properly
medically treated, ” but he does not provide any
details related to this allegation. (Id.).
29, 2018, Jones sued Smith, Daddysman, Niland, Lee, and WCI
Staffunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). (ECF
No. 1). In his Complaint, Jones alleges that Defendants
violated: (1) his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment. (Compl. at 3). Jones seeks monetary compensation
because he has been assaulted and asks to be placed in
protective custody or transferred out of state.
6, 2018, the Court entered an Order granting Jones
twenty-eight days to supplement his Complaint to: “(1)
state what wrongdoing he alleges Defendants Lt. Smith, Sgt.
Daddysman, E. Niland, and Officer Lee committed; (2) the
dates and places where these actions or omissions occurred;
(3) to whom and when he complained that his life is in
danger; (4) when the three assaults occurred and who
assaulted him; and (5) provide facts to support his claim
that he is not receiving proper medical treatment. (July 6,
2018 Order at 2-3, ECF No. 3). The Court also cautioned Jones
that failure to provide this information could result in
dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice and without
further notice. (Id. at 2).
August 1, 2018, Jones sent a letter to the Court concerning
his inmate account statement. (Aug. 1, 2018 Ltr., ECF No. 8).
On August 8, 2018, Jones submitted a copy of what seems to be
a portion of his medical records from 2012, listing various
prescriptions medications. (Aug. 8, 2018 Ltr. at 2, ECF No.
In his August 8, 2018 correspondence, Jones also states that
he filed “papers” with the Inmate Grievance
Office (“IGO”), likely referring to his use of
the Administrative Remedy Procedure (“ARP”)
process at WCI, but he does not identify the subject of these
filings. (Id. at 1). Importantly, neither of these
filings comply with the Court's Order to supplement his
August 17, 2018, WCI Defendants filed their Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 13). Jones filed an Opposition on September
6, 2018. (ECF No. 17). To date, the Court has no record that
WCI Defendants filed a Reply.
purpose of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) is to “test[ ] the sufficiency of a complaint,
” not to “resolve contests surrounding the facts,
the merits of a claim, or the applicability of
defenses.” King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206,
214 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). A
complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), or does not “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 is facially
plausible “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. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555). Though the plaintiff is not required to
forecast evidence to prove the elements of the claim, the
complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish each
element. Goss v. Bank of America, N.A., 917
F.Supp.2d 445, 449 (D.Md. 2013) (quoting Walters v.
McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012)),
aff'd sub nom., Goss v. Bank of America,
NA, 546 Fed.Appx. 165 (4th Cir. 2013).
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a 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.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd. of
Comm'rs, 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). But,
the court need not accept unsupported or conclusory factual
allegations devoid of any reference to actual events,
United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844,
847 (4th Cir. 1979), or legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court
recognizes that as a self-represented plaintiff, Jones is
held to a ‘“less stringent'” standard
than a lawyer, and the Court must liberally construe his
Complaint. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Defendants contend that Jones fails to state a claim against
them because, while Jones names WCI Defendants in the caption
of the Complaint, he does not provide any factual allegations
against them in the text of the pleading. As a result, WCI
Defendants argue, Jones fails to present facts that would
permit the Court to infer that any of them engaged in the
conduct alleged in the Complaint. The Court agrees with WCI
Jones fails to allege how any of WCI Defendants were
responsible for the matters at issue. The Court's July 6,
2018 Order directing Jones to supplement his Complaint noted
this deficiency and provided a blueprint for correcting it.
Jones did not correct this deficiency, and therefore the
Court will dismiss the Complaint without ...