United States District Court, D. Maryland
SHAKEEN J. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
GWENDOLYN OLIVER, et al., Defendants.
L. Russell, III United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Gwendolyn Oliver and
Donna Hansen's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18). The Motion is ripe
for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2018). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion and
dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.
Shakeen J. Davis is a federal pre-trial detainee housed at
the Chesapeake Detention Facility (“CDF”) in
Baltimore, Maryland. (Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1). Oliver was the
Acting Warden at CDF, and Hansen was the Acting Assistant
Warden at CDF. (Id. at 1). Davis arrived at CDF
on February 24, 2017 and has since experienced various
“harsh and unsanitary living conditions” that
have caused him to live in “huge discomfort.”
(Id. at 1, 5). In the winter, the CDF “jail
tier” is “freezing cold” due to a
“faulty heating system.” (Id. at 2). As
a result, there have been times when Davis's
“hands, feet and other body parts were completely
numb.” (Id. at 2-3). In January 2018, Davis
and other inmates were briefly transferred to the Jessup
Correctional Institution because CDF was so cold.
(Id. at 3). When Davis returned to CDF, the
temperature on his tier was below 30 degrees. (Id.).
the opposite problem in the warmer months: due to lack of air
conditioning, jail “thermostats read off inhumane
temperatures over 100 degrees.” (Id.). Davis
has asthma, so the conditions at CDF in the summer make it
difficult for him to breathe properly. (Id.). Davis
sought medical treatment, but “medical”
instructed him to stay hydrated with ice water even though
ice is rarely available. (Id.).
to Davis, the cells at CDF were designed to house only one
inmate yet now typically hold two. (Id. at 3-4).
There is only one shower for every twenty-four inmates, and
the showers are not cleaned properly and contain mold.
(Id. at 4). There is no cafeteria, and the kitchen
has been closed repeatedly, “sometimes for
weeks.” (Id.). CDF also has a pest problem,
such that inmates have found insects in their food.
(Id.). There is no library, so Davis has “no
way to expand [his] mind.” (Id. at 4).
Further, there is no inside gym at CDF, and the outdoor area
has “one basketball goal and nothing else
whatsoever.” (Id.). Davis is not permitted to
go outside often-even less when he is on segregation.
(Id. at 4-5). CDF officials have erroneously
calculated Davis's segregation days based on state,
rather than federal, guidelines. (Id. at 5).
has “put in various Grievance forms, ” the
“majority” of which received no response.
(Id. at 2). In response to certain complaints, Davis
“was told they would look more into the matter.”
(Id.). The most recent complaint Davis himself
filed, pertaining to “the hot water being shut off with
no notice, ” received no response. (Id. at
5-6). Davis never appealed the disposition of his complaints
because he was not aware that he had that option.
(Id. at 2).
April 27, 2018, Davis sued Defendants. He alleges that the
conditions at CDF “exceed the punishment that [Davis]
deserve[s]” and have left him “emotionally
distressed and mentally distraught.” (Id. at
5). Davis seeks $150, 000 in damages or a “reduced jail
sentence for any sentence imposed on me.” (Id.
January 16, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
On January 28, 2019, Davis filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 20).
To date, the Court has no record that Defendants filed a
argue that they are entitled to dismissal of, or judgment in
their favor on, the claims against them because Davis has not
administratively exhausted his claims and because the
Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Davis does not respond to the administrative
exhaustion argument and only attempts to rebut
Defendants' evidence, not their legal arguments about his
claims. The Court agrees with Defendants that Davis has not
exhausted his administrative remedies.
style their Motion as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56. A
motion styled in this manner implicates the Court's
discretion under Rule 12(d). See Kensington Volunteer
Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., 788 F.Supp.2d
431, 436-37 (D.Md. 2011), aff'd, 684 F.3d 462
(4th Cir. 2012). This Rule provides that when “matters
outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by
the court, the [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion must be treated as one
for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(d). The Court “has ‘complete discretion to
determine whether or not to accept the submission of any
material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction
with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and rely on it, thereby
converting the motion, or to reject it or simply not consider
it.'” Wells-Bey v. Kopp, No. ELH-12-2319,
2013 WL 1700927, at *5 (D.Md. Apr. 16, 2013) (quoting 5C
Wright & Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1366, at 159 (3d ed. 2004, 2012
Suppls.)). The Court may consider part of such a motion under
Rule 12(b)(6) and part under Rule 56. See Pitts v.
Druckman, No. PWG-17-3546, 2019 WL 121016, at *4 (D.Md.
Jan. 4, 2019), aff'd, 771 Fed.Appx. 304 (4th
Cir. 2019); Dale v. Maryland Dep't of Transp.,
No. ELH-13-191, 2015 WL 221628, at *5 (D.Md. Jan. 15, 2015),
aff'd sub nom. Dale v. Maryland Dep't of
Transportation, 672 Fed.Appx. 323 (4th Cir. 2017).
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
articulated two requirements for proper conversion of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 motion: notice and a reasonable
opportunity for discovery. See Greater Balt. Ctr. for
Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council,
721 F.3d 264, 281 (4th Cir. 2013). When movants expressly
caption their motion “in the alternative” as one
for summary judgment and submit matters outside the pleadings
for the court's consideration, the parties are deemed to
be on notice that conversion under Rule 12(d) may occur.
See Moret v. Harvey, 381 F.Supp.2d 458, 464 (D.Md.