United States District Court, D. Maryland
DAYTRON L. MOBLEY, SR., #346455,
CO. II HEATH R. MICHAEL, CO. H WALTER OAKES, CO. H EARL CLARK,
CATHERINE C. BLAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Daytron L. Mobley, Sr., who is incarcerated at the North
Branch Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland
("NBCI"), filed a complaint in September 2018
alleging that on December 10, 2017, he was purposefully
placed in a cell with a member of a rival gang, who attempted
to harm him. ECF No. I. Mobley seeks unspecified damages and
transfer to another prison. ECF No. 1, p. 3, ¶ IV.
named Correctional Officer "Heath Miller" as the
individual responsible for placing him in harm's way. He
claimed that correctional officers Walter Oakes and Earl
Clark covered up the assault. After Clark and Oakes responded
to the complaint with a motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment (ECF No. 14), Mobley moved to add a third
correctional defendant (ECF No. 17) but did not name the
individual or explain the individual's alleged
involvement in the case. Thereafter, he identified
Correctional Officer Heath Michael as a defendant (ECF No.
19) and moved to amend or correct the complaint to substitute
"Heath Michael" for "Heath Miller," who
was incorrectly named and never served with summons in this
lawsuit. (ECF No. 22). The Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint
was granted (ECF No. 27) and counsel for Clark and Oakes
accepted service and responded on behalf of Defendant
Michael. (ECF No. 31).
dispositive motion (ECF No. 14), which is opposed by Mobley
(ECF Nos. 32 and 33), may be decided without a hearing.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons
stated below, Mobley's "affidavit" (ECF No. 28)
and "declarations" (ECF Nos. 24 and 26) will be
STRICKEN and the Correctional Defendants'
dispositive motion as supplemented (ECF Nos. 14, 31),
construed as a motion for summary judgment,  will be GRANTED.
Plaintiff Mobley's Allegations
unverified Complaint,  Mobley states that on December 10, 2017,
Defendant Heath ■ Michael (incorrectly identified as
Heath Miller) escorted him from the shower and placed him in
cell l-B-52 with fellow prisoner Justin Davis, allegedly on
instructions of the housing unit manager. ECF No. 1, p. 3,
¶ 3. Michael then left the area, and Davis placed Mobley
in a choke hold. Id. Defendant Oakes, Officer
Bosley and others responded, broke up the fight,
handcuffed both men, and escorted each to separate areas.
Id. Once separated, Mobley and Davis were told by
Clark and Oakes to sign statements saying nothing happened.
Id. Defendant Clark told Mobley that if he did not
sign, he would be issued an infraction for escape, being out
of bounds, and "other rulings to keep me on
lockup." Id., p. 4. Mobley states that since
the incident, Clark and Oakes "threaten" him, use
racial slurs, and tell him he "will die in prison even
if they have to do it themselves." Id.
December 10, 2017, Defendant Clark was assigned to
Mobley's housing unit, a unit reserved for prisoners
placed in administrative or disciplinary segregation. ECF No.
14-2, ¶ 3, Declaration of Earl Clark. Clark received a
radio call from the housing unit control center that a
prisoner had been placed 'in the wrong cell and needed to
be moved. Id. Clark arrived at the cell within one
minute of receiving the radio call and saw Mobley and another
prisoner, Justin Davis, standing in the cell talking to one
another. Id. Clark "did not observe any
physical or verbal altercation, nor did he observe Mobley to
have suffered any physical injuries. Id. The inmates
were handcuffed and taken to separate strip cages to be
searched for contraband, in accordance with institutional
security procedures. Id.
never told Clark on. or before December 10, 2017, that Davis
posed a threat to him. Id., ¶ 4. Clark avers
that he did not direct the two prisoners to be placed in a
cell together so that Davis could harm or kill Mobley,
id., ¶ 5, or that he ever threatened Mobley
with rule infractions or forced him to provide a written
statement as alleged, id., ¶ 6.
Oakes also was assigned to Mobley's unit on December 10,
2017. ECF No. 14-3, Declaration of Walter Oakes, ¶ 3.
While on duty that day, Oakes was directed to go to, a cell
where he saw Mobley talking to Justin Davis. Id.
Oakes observed the men standing and talking to one another.
Id. He did not observe a physical or verbal
altercation or that Mobley suffered a physical injury.
Id. Oakes avers that Mobley never told him on or
before December 10, 2017, that Davis posed a threat to
Mobley. Id., ¶ 4. Oakes never directed or
caused Mobley to be placed in the cell with Davis to cause
Mobley harm or death. Id., ¶ 5. Further, Oakes
never threatened Mobley with a rule infraction or forced him
to provide a written statement as he alleges. Id.,
¶ 6. Oakes denies using racial slurs or telling Mobley
he would die in prison. Id.
to Mobley's Offender Case Management System records
(OCMS), he is documented as an affiliated member of the BGF
gang. ECF No. 14-4, Declaration of John White, Correctional
Case Manager II, with attachments, p. 3. The OCMS record for
inmate Justin Davis indicates no gang affiliation.
Id., p. 4. Correctional institutions maintain Enemy
List files in which a prisoner may request a fellow prisoner
whom they perceive to be a threat placed on their Enemy List,
but such a claim is investigated and verified before the
individuals are listed as enemies. Id., p. 1, ¶
4. Once verified, Case Management will add the names to the
Enemy Alert so that individuals may be housed separately to
avoid altercations. Id. There is no record in
Mobley's case file that he ever submitted a request to
have Davis placed on his Enemy List. Id., pp. 1-2,
note that Mobley appeared at his monthly scheduled
administrative segregation review four days after the alleged
December 10, 2017, incident and did not voice any concerns or
complaints about his safety regarding inmate Davis.
Id., p. 2, ¶ 5. Neither prisoner requested the
other be placed on their respective OCMS Enemy Alerts &
Retractions lists either prior to or subsequent to the
alleged incident date. ECF No. 14-4, pp. 5-6.
Mobley and Davis submitted Administrative Remedy Procedure
("ARP") grievances regarding the alleged incident.
Id., pp. 7, 34-36. Davis's ARP grievance
included written statements, dated December 10, 2017, that
both he and Mobley provided regarding the alleged incident in
which they both stated no assault occurred. Id., pp.
44-45. Mobley's statement, which he signed and was
witnessed by two officers, including Oakes, specifically
states that he was ...