Canter v. Weber

1

AMBER MAREE CANTER, Plaintiff v. WARDEN RONALD WEBER, CORY WALKER, CASE MANAGER DAVIS, LT. JAMES SMITH, MADALINE GORDON, CO HEDRICK, CO JOHNSON, and JAMAL SIMMS, Defendants

Civil Action No. GJH-20-1894

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

May 12, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge.

In response to the above-captioned civil rights complaint Defendants Warden Ronald Weber, Cory Walker, Case Manager Davis, Lieutenant James Smith, Madaline Gordon, Officer Hedrick, and Officer Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 23. Self-represented Plaintiff Amber Maree Canter has opposed the motion. ECF 27. No hearing is necessary to address the matters pending. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion shall be granted in part and denied in part and the Complaint shall be dismissed as to Defendant Jamal Simms.

BACKGROUND

A. Complaint

The Complaint concerns an alleged failure to protect Plaintiff from the violence of another inmate. Plaintiff, who is a transgender woman^[1] incarcerated at Western Correctional Institution (“WCI”), states that she suffers from “gender dysphoria” and that this fact is well known by staff at WCI. Despite that knowledge, Plaintiff was forced to go into a cell occupied by an inmate who had been convicted of first-degree rape and other violent sex offenses for which he is serving multiple life sentences. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff states that “she has the developing parts of a female (i.e., breast[s]).” Id.

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff was released from disciplinary segregation and, according to her account, the plan was to place her in administrative segregation for her own protection. ECF No. 1 at 10. Plaintiff recalls Officer V. Lark escorted her to the Housing Unit (“HU”) 4 property room to locate her personal property. Once there, Plaintiff reminded both Lark and Officer Hedrick that it was difficult to house her safely because of her transgender status and because she has breasts. Id. At this point Plaintiff recalls the officers advising her that they had already picked out a cellmate for Plaintiff, Jamal Simms. Id. When Plaintiff asked to see a picture of Simms, Hedrick pulled up a photo of Simms on the inmate data base. Id. Plaintiff states that, in addition to Simms's picture, she also saw his convictions for rape and other sex offenses. Id. After seeing the information, Plaintiff told Officer Hedrick that she would not feel safe going into the cell with Simms because of the nature of his offenses. Id. Hedrick told Plaintiff that if she did not accept the cell assignment with Simms, she would be put in a “contingency cell” and she would receive an infraction. Id.

Plaintiff recalls that Hedrick called Lt. Smith and told him about Plaintiff's concerns regarding Simms as a cellmate. ECF No. 1 at 10. Plaintiff states that Smith repeated the same ultimatum provided by Hedrick: accept the cell assignment with Simms or be placed in a contingency cell. Id. at 10-11. Given the choices provided, Plaintiff accepted the cell assignment “against [her] will.” Id at 11. When Plaintiff arrived at the cell occupied by Simms, she states that Simms was standing in the cell completely nude. Id. At this time, Officer Lark expressed concern over putting Plaintiff in the cell with Simms, stating “we can't put Canter in the cell with him.” Id. Hedrick simply responded that they could put Plaintiff in the cell with Simms. Id.

Plaintiff states that during the time she shared a cell with Simms, from April 27, 2020 to May 20, 2020, Simms made multiple sexual advances on Plaintiff. ECF No. 1 at 11. When Plaintiff reported Simms's behavior to Defendants, nothing was done. Id. On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff awoke at 6:00 a.m., noticed her shorts were down, and felt Simms rubbing her “right butt cheek with his left hand” then moving up to Plaintiff's breast while Simms was masturbating. Id. Plaintiff asked Simms to stop, and Simms complied. Id. Simms asked Plaintiff not to report him and out of fear, Plaintiff promised she would not report him. Id. At 8:00 a.m. on the same morning, Plaintiff encountered Officer Howard Johnson while he was conducting count and told him that she had been sexually assaulted. Id. at 12. Johnson refused to report it. Id. Meanwhile, Simms began vomiting and Lt. Smith took Simms to medical. Id. Plaintiff remained in the cell. Id.

At 4:30 p.m. on the date of the incident with Simms, Plaintiff gave a letter to Mrs. Johnson^[2]concerning the assault. ECF No. 1 at 12. Johnson “followed PREA^[3] standard[s] and reported it.” Id. As a result of the report, Officer Wilburn took Plaintiff out of her cell and escorted her to the property room. Id. Once there, Plaintiff was seen by medical staff, but she was not allowed to write a statement regarding the incident, no pictures were taken, and the Internal Investigations Division (IID) was not notified. Id. Plaintiff then wrote to PREA Coordinator Madaline Gordon, Warden Weber, Lt. Smith, and Case Management Manager Cory Walker stating that she wanted to pursue criminal charges against Simms for the sexual assault. Id. According to Plaintiff, each recipient of the letter indicated that there was “no need” to pursue charges. Id.

On March 25, 2020, at 8:00 a.m., Plaintiff states, she gave Officer Johnson “all [her] documents and ARPs, statements, cop[ies] of request/letters to all Defendants” and Officer Johnson threw the documents in the trash. ECF No. 1 at 12-13. It is Plaintiff's belief that this action was taken in an effort to deter her from pursuing a claim for failure to protect. Id. at 13. Plaintiff bases this belief on the fact that she “told Defendants [she] was filing [a] civil action, ” giving them motive to cover-up “this crime.” Id. She notes that she still has not received the documents to present with the complaint in this case. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in “several retaliatory actions” since the assault occurred. ECF No. 1 at 13. She states she has not been allowed to speak to IID so that she can press criminal charges against Simms; “they have made it extremely hard to exhaust administrative remedy procedures;” they keep putting her into cells with inmates with whom she is not compatible; and they tamper with her outgoing mail. Id.

Plaintiff seeks as relief a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from: ignoring PREA standards; retaliating against her; and interfering with her efforts to press criminal charges against Simms. ECF No. 1 at 14 and 16. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the implementation of stricter guidelines for determining who is a suitable cell mate for her; to produce all documents that were stolen; and to allow her to file ARPs “on issues.” Id. at 16. Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment stating that Defendants' refusal to ensure Plaintiff's safety is a violation of her constitutional rights and she seeks monetary damages. Id. at 15.

B. Defendants' Response

David Hedrick, Correctional Officer II provides a declaration in which he indicates that he has “no involvement or influence whatsoever” in Plaintiff's cell assignment. ECF No. 23-3 at 1, ¶ 4. Hedrick adds that he has no knowledge of Simms's alleged assault on Plaintiff and that he has not discriminated against Plaintiff “on any illegal basis.” Id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 5, 6.

Similarly, Officer Howard Johnson provides a declaration stating that he has no recollection of Plaintiff giving him her legal papers or any other documents on or about May 25, 2020. ECF No. 23-4 at 1, ¶ 3. Johnson claims that it his practice to “relay any documents given to me by inmates to the Litigation Coordinator for WCI.” Id. at ¶ 4. Johnson also states he has not discriminated against Plaintiff “on any illegal basis.”^[4] Id. at 2, ¶ 6. Johnson also claims to have no knowledge that Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Simms. Id. at 1, ¶ 5.

In response to this Court's Order to Show Cause why injunctive relief should not be granted in favor of Plaintiff, Defendants submitted a declaration from Correctional Case Management Supervisor Michael Yates. ECF No. 6-1. Yates explains that on May 4, 2020, Plaintiff and Simms were assigned to the same cell as they were not listed as verified enemies. Id. at 1, ¶ 4. Additionally, Yates explains that Simms's PREA intake screening form “indicates that he's neither a risk of victimization or a risk of abusiveness; and, therefore could be housed with the Plaintiff.” Id.

Yates recalls that on April 22, 2020, Plaintiff's mother called WCI to report that “Plaintiff had been assaulted by [her] cell partner Taylan Jones.” Id. at 1-2, ¶ 5. As a result of that phone call, Jones was moved to another housing location. Id. Jones and Plaintiff subsequently “signed enemy retraction statements; and, by the request of both inmates, have been housed together in cell 5-C-10 since July 1, 2020 without incident.” Id. at ¶ 6, see also ECF No. 6-2 at 3 (Plaintiff's letter to counsel for the Maryland Attorney General's Correctional Litigation Unit).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 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. 662 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly,...