Blankumsee v. Galley

AZANIAH BLANKUMSEE, # 326-698 Plaintiff, v. JON P. GALLEY, Regional Executive Director (North),RICHARD RODERICK, Case Mgmt. Manager-Acting Asst. Warden,LT. HARBAUGH, Gang Intelligence Unit Officer, Defendants.

Civil Action No. PWG-15-837

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

January 21, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending is Azaniah Blankumsee's self-represented, verified complaint and verified supplement filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while Blankumsee was housed at North Branch Correctional Institution (NBCI) as a maximum security inmate.¹ Compl., ECF No. 1; Pl.'s Supp., ECF No. 7. Blankumsee claims he was denied his rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Maryland law when Defendants wrongfully labeled him a member of a prison gang or security threat group (STG), a designation that, in his view, subjected him to discrimination and placed him in danger. Compl. & Supp 2. Defendants, former Regional Executive Director Jon Galley, former Acting Assistant Warden Richard Roderick of NBCI,² and Lieutenant Jeffery Harbaugh, who are sued in their official and individual capacities, have filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative forSummary Judgment, as well as a memorandum in support and a supplement. ECF Nos. 13, 13-1, 21. Blankumsee filed an opposition with exhibits to Defendants' dispositive motion. ECF Nos. 18, 18-1 - 18-5. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and applicable law, I find a hearing unnecessary to resolve the issues. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.³

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Claims

In his verified complaint and the declaration he attached to it, Blankumsee denies that he ever was a member of a prison gang or STG. Compl. 3; Blankumsee Decl., ECF No. 1-9. Blankumsee also filed the declaration of fellow inmate Aaron Watkins, who maintains that Blankumsee was "never a gang member or affiliated with any gangs." ECF No. 18-1. Watkins' declaration contains no facts to support his assertion.

Blankumsee attempted to have his STG designation removed but was told that "evidence was found to support [his] current validation as being part of a security threat group." Req. for Admin. Remedy, ECF No. 1-6; see Supp. Resp., ECF No. 18-2. He complains that he cannot review or challenge the evidence. Compl. 5; Blankumsee Decl.; see Supp. Resp. Blankumsee claims that STG designation has caused him to be denied prison jobs, prison programming, the chance to earn diminution credits, and the opportunity to lower his security classification status.⁴Compl. 3. He states that labeling him a member of a STG affects the duration of his sentence, since he cannot earn good conduct credits at the same rate as other inmates. According to Blankumsee, "job participation[] is rewarded with [diminution] credits" that "are then used to shorten a prisoner's sentence, and ... denying Plaintiff job participation[] deprives him of the right to earn credits, which prolongs his confinement, and time in prison." Id. at 6. He claims he should be assigned to a lower security status. Id. Blankumsee also claims that the STG affiliation label places him in immediate danger because of "the substantial violent nature of these gang members" and his placement in housing that identifies him as a gang member to members of other gangs. Pl.'s Supp. 2-3; Compl. 3. He avers that the "whole ordeal" has adversely affected his mental, psychological, and physical well-being. Compl. 8. In his Supplement, however, Blankumsee states he is "not asserting a claim for mental, physical, or emotional injury." Pl.'s Supp. 1.

As relief, he requests a declaration that Defendants' conduct violated his constitutional rights, injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide him with evidence pertaining to his alleged gang involvement, a prison job, transfer to another correctional facility away from the Cumberland region, and compensatory and punitive damages. Compl. 9.⁵ He further seeks transfer to a lower security facility where he can learn job skills. Id. at 6.

Defendants' Response

Defendants have filed affidavits and verified exhibits in support of their dispositive motion. On June 21, 2013, Galley responded to an inquiry from Blankumsee's brother, Tressie Smiley, concerning Blankumsee's security level. Jon Galley Decl. 3, ECF No. 13-4. Galleyattests:

I did not personally conduct the investigation that determined that inmate Azahiaah Blakiumsee [sic] had prior gang involvement. I relied upon information provide to me by DPSCS [the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services] employees familiar with Azahiah [sic] Blankumsee in determining that inmate Blankumsee's security level as determined by the Security Reclassification Instrument was appropriate.

Id.

Richard Roderick attests that his duties include responding to communications and administrative remedy procedure (ARP) requests from inmates. Richard Roderick Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 13-5. On November 20, 2014, he responded to Blankumsee's "request for job assignments to Dietary." Id.

On January 7, 2015, he denied ARP NBCI-3261, in which Blankumsee "claimed he was improperly designated as a member of a security threat group." Id. Roderick attests:

As part of the review process of ARP NBCI-3261-14, Blankumsee's allegations were reviewed by staff and his intelligence file was reviewed. I did not personally conduct the investigation that determined that Blankumsee had prior gang involvement. I relied upon the investigation and information by DPSCS employees familiar with Blankumsee in determining that Blankumsee was a properly validated member of a STG pursuant to DPSCS' policy and procedure. DPSCS policy DCD 245.005, M.l. states that "All jobs and program assignments will be made by case management with the approval of the warden/designee, with due consideration for...security and public safety concerns." Due to security and public safety concerns, Blankumsee was not entitled and was denied a job in dietary based on the information provided to me that he was a validated member of a STG.

Id. ¶ 3. On April 2, 2015, Blankumsee filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO) as an appeal of the ARP decision. Scott Oakley Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 13-3. The IGO administratively dismissed the grievance on April 14, 2015, for failure to properly exhaust the ARP process. Id.⁶

In denying the ARP, Roderick indicated that Blankumsee's STG validation was to be reviewed within the next year to consider whether removal was appropriate at that time. Roderick Decl. 5. Roderick states that Blankumsee's job assignment history from November 2013 reveals that, from July 24, 2012 through March 5, 2014, Blankumsee was assigned to sanitation; he then was on a job bank wait list until February 23, 2015, when he "was assigned to Parenting Group # 18" through June 23, 2015, at which time he was returned to the job bank wait list. Id. ¶ 4. After Blankumsee's transfer to WCI, his classification was changed to medium security and he was assigned to a job in the dietary department. Tennille Winters Decl., ECF No. 21-1 (Case Manager).

In support of their dispositive motion, Defendants filed two declarations executed by Lt. Jason Harbaugh, supervisor of NBCI intelligence. Harbaugh Decl., ECF No. 13-6; Second Harbaugh Decl., ECF No. 14.⁷ Harbaugh attests that Blankumsee "was initially validated as a SGT member in October 2010." Second Harbaugh Decl. ¶ 2. In November of 2013, Blankumsee complained to Harbaugh that "he had never been involved in gang activity." Id. Harbaugh reviewed the information and determined that Blankumsee was properly validated. Id. A subsequent investigation, after Blankumsee "again claimed to never be involved in gangactivity," concluded that the STG designation was valid because "information found during a search of inmate Blankumsee's cell indicated he had contacts with current members of a STG. Id.

Harbaugh explains:

When an inmate claims that he has been incorrectly labelled as a Security Threat Group (STG) member, a review of the available information is made. If the information is verified, the STG label will remain. If an error is found, the STG label will be removed

When an inmate claims that he should no longer be designated a STG, an initial investigation is done by the institutional intelligence lieutenant or his designee at the institution where the inmate is housed. The investigation is done over a period of time to ensure institutional security and that the inmate does not obscure his STG affiliation solely for the renunciation process. If the lieutenant and the Warden or the Warden's designee agrees that the inmate should no longer be validated as an STG, a request for removal from the STG list ... [is] sent to the Intelligence Unit at Headquarters [HQ]. An investigative review is conducted by the HQ Intelligence Unit. If the HQ Intelligence Unit agrees that the STG designation should be removed, the inmate shall be removed from the STG list.

Harbaugh Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Harbaugh states that Blankumsee "never filed a renunciation request." Id. ¶ 6.

Harbaugh attests that "[t]he STG validation policy and procedure is security sensitive and confidential; therefore, not all steps of the investigation are provided to inmates or to the general staff," because "[p]roviding this information to inmates and the general staff would severally [sic] compromise the process and thwart efforts to investigate, identify, and validate STG members." Id. ¶ 5.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motion to Dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for "the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Velencia v. Drezhlo, No. RDB-12-237, 2012 WL 6562764, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2012). This rule's purpose "'is to test the sufficiencyof a complaint and not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of...