Williams v. Corcoran

SCOTLAND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DAYENA CORCORAN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-19-896

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

March 12, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Scotland Williams, the self-represented plaintiff, is a Maryland prisoner incarcerated at North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI") in Cumberland, Maryland. He brings this civil action ("Williams II") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Commissioner of Correction Dayena Corcoran, Warden Frank Bishop, Jr., and Librarian Rebecca Hammons (ECF 1), complaining that he was wrongfully "deprived of the funds in his account without due process." Id. at 5. Williams appended several exhibits to his suit.

In particular, plaintiff asserts that he learned on April 18, 2016, that he was "charged $5.00 for materials from the library," and the fee dates to February 8, 2011. Id. at 4. According to plaintiff, Hammons violated his due process rights by "refusing to give him notice of being charged for the library materials and depriving him of the opportunity to challenge the charge." Id. at 6. And, he complains that Corcoran and Bishop violated his rights by failing to remedy the occurrence. Id. at 5. Williams seeks compensatory damages of $5.00 "against each defendant, jointly and severally," punitive damages of $500 "against each defendant, jointly and severally," and costs. Id. at 6.

Bishop and Corcoran have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 15. Their motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 15-1) (collectively, the "Motion"), and several exhibits. ECF 15-2 to ECF 15-4. The exhibits include a copy of the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court in a similar case initiated by plaintiff, concerning a charge to his account for photocopy fees. ECF 15-2; see also Williams v. Commissioner, ELH-17-2003 ("Williams I"), ECF 17. Hammons has also moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 25. To avoid duplication, she merely joins the Motion filed by the codefendants. Id. at 2. Because Hammons has joined the Motion, I shall address the two motions collectively.¹

Williams was notified of his right to respond to the motions and the consequences of failing to do so. ECF 16; ECF 26. Williams filed two requests for extensions of time in which to respond. ECF 18; ECF 23. The Court granted both requests. ECF 19; ECF 24. The Court also granted Williams's request to submit a consolidated response to the motions, which was due by December 31, 2019, i.e., more than four months after the Motion was filed. See ECF 29.

On January 6, 2020, Williams filed another motion for continuance, in which he also requested the opportunity to conduct discovery. ECF 30 (the "Motion for Continuance"). He attached one exhibit. ECF 30-1. But, Williams has not responded to the merits of the Motion.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motion for Continuance and I shall grant the Motion.

I. Factual Background²

NBCI "provides library services to all inmates." ECF 1 at 3. According to Williams, materials available from the library include "legal and reference materials," as well as fiction and non-fiction books, "large print books," foreign language books, and magazines. Id. at 3-4. "Library materials generally must be returned after two weeks." Id. at 4. Inmates are "financially responsible for any library materials that are damaged or not returned." Id. According to Williams, inmates in segregation can submit library request forms for books, including legal materials. Id. These materials are photocopied and then delivered to the inmate. Id.

Williams claims that on April 18, 2016, he learned that he was charged $5.00 in connection with library materials, and the charge dates to February 8, 2011. ECF 1 at 4. An account statement attached to the Motion reflects a $5.00 "Trans. Amt." for "Paper Materials," incurred on February 8, 2011. ECF 15-3 at 4. Plaintiff claims he was unaware of the charge, had not been notified of the charge, and was not given a hearing. ECF 1 at 4. Nor does he know the basis for the charge. Id. Moreover, he disputes that he owes the money. Id.

On April 19, 2016, Williams filed a request for administrative remedy procedure ("ARP") concerning the $5.00 library charge. ECF 1 at 5. He attached a copy of his ARP, "NBCI 0894-16," as an exhibit to the suit in Williams II. ECF 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff signed the ARP on April 19, 2016, and it was received on April 22, 2016. Id. Williams has also submitted evidence of the $5.00 charge from February 8, 2011. ECF 1-2 at 2. And, he attached the Borrower's Responsibility Agreement, dated November 5, 2008, which states, in part: "If a [library] book isnot returned or is damaged, I will sign a voucher for the amount to be taken from my account or an adjustment will be written." Id. at 3. In the ARP, plaintiff claimed that he returned all his library materials, and that the $5.00 charge was erroneous. ECF 1-2 at 1.

Williams contends that the ARP was dismissed as untimely, because the charge occurred in 2011. ECF 1 at 5. The ARP request is stamped: "Dismissed for procedural reasons: Final per DCD 185-002 VI.L.3. Your request was not received within the established timeframe." ECF 1-2 at 1. Scotland signed a "Receipt of Warden's Response" on April 25, 2016. ECF 15-3 at 5.

Plaintiff noted an appeal as to the ARP. ECF 1-2 at 4. On the appeal form, Williams stated: "The request was received within established timeframe, therefore dismissal for procedural reasons is without merit." Id. There is no indication on the form that it was received or processed. Id. But, Williams contends that his appeal was dismissed. ECF 1 at 5.

Williams attached to his suit a letter he received from the Inmate Grievance Office ("IGO"), dated August 5, 2016. ECF 1-2 at 5. It was written in response to plaintiff's appeal of June 29, 2016, as to ARP NBCI-0894-16. Id. On behalf of the IGO, Audrey Brown told Williams that he had failed to include a copy of his "ARP complaint." Id. Further, she said, id. at 5-6:

COMAR 12.07.01.04(B)(9)(a) requires that you demonstrate exhaustion of the ARP process by submitting, with your grievance at the outset of the grievance process, all related ARP paperwork. COMAR 12.07.01.06(B)(4) provides that a grievance shall be dismissed on preliminary review as wholly lacking in merit if the grievant did not properly exhaust remedies available under the ARP process and if the exhaustion requirement has not been waived for good cause shown. . .

In order for this Office to determine whether you have properly exhausted an available ARP remedy, whether you have timely filed this grievance, and whether you have stated a claim upon which administrative relief can and should be granted, we require that you provide copies of all related ARP paperwork pertaining to this grievance, including your ARP complaint to the Warden, any receipt from the Warden, any response of the Warden, any appeal to the Commissioner, any receipt from the Commissioner, and any response of the Commissioner, all as required by COMAR 12.07.01.04(B)(9).

Brown told Williams that he had 30 days from the date of her letter to provide all of the "missing ARP paperwork" and, if he failed to do so, his complaint would be dismissed. Id. at 6. However, there is no indication of a response from plaintiff.

Defendants assert that the grievance was dismissed on September 6, 2016, for failure of plaintiff to comply with the IGO's directive. ECF 15-1 at 6. They cite "Exhibit 5 at 1-2." Id. But, they did not include an Exhibit 5.

Maryland Code (2017 Repl. Vol.), § 10-207(b)(2)(ii) of the Correctional Services Article ("Corr. Serv.") states: "The order of dismissal constitutes the final decision of the Secretary for purposes of judicial review." The final agency determination is subject to judicial review in a Maryland circuit court. See Corr. Servs. § 10-210. However, there is no indication in the submission that Williams sought review in a Maryland court. In any event, defendants do not contend that Williams failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Pozo v. McCaughty, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[A] prisoner who uses all administrative options that the state offers need not also pursue judicial review in state court.").

Williams's earlier case (Williams I), challenging an assessment for photocopy fees, is also relevant. And, as discussed, infra, I may take judicial notice of it.

In Williams I, plaintiff challenged a charge to his account that was assessed in April 2016 for photocopy fees. The fees were incurred on multiple occasions. In support of defendants' summary judgment motion, defendants submitted the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services' Trust Account Activity Statement for Williams, for the period November 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. ECF 11-2 at 1. It showed that on April 1, 2016, $50.00 was deposited into Williams's inmate account at NBCI. See Williams I, ECF 11-2 at 1; see also Williams II, ECF 15-2 at 2; ECF 15-3 at 9. After the $50 was deposited to Williams's account, his account wasdebited $30.27 for a debt previously incurred for photocopy fees. Williams II, ECF 15-2 at 2; Williams I, ECF 11-2. It was that transaction that was at issue in Williams I. In addition, plaintiff was charged $10.00 for a court filing fee. Williams I, ECF 11-1 at 3. Thus, Williams's account was debited a total of $40.27, of which $30.27 was for photocopy fees. Williams I, ECF 11-2 at 2. But, the records showed that he actually owed a total of $43.35 for photocopy and library fees. ECF 11-3.³

In the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court in Williams I, id. at ECF 17, awarding summary judgment to defendants, I referenced the explanation provided by Cheryl Lindner, the Fiscal Account Clerk Manager at NBCI, provided on September 22, 2016, to Audrey Brown. Williams I, ECF 11-3. Lindner said that Williams owed...