Campbell v. Irby
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 5/11/11. (c/m af 5/11/11)(amf, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOSEPH LEMBURG CAMPBELL, #356-745 *
Plaintiff
*
v
*
MATTHEW IRBY, et al.
*
Defendants
Civil Action Case No. RDB-10-2930
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The pro se plaintiff Joseph L. Campbell (“Campbell”) has filed his Complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendants Correctional Officer Matthew Irby, Correctional Officer Warren
Philyaw, and Correctional Officer Shaun E. Gregory, by their counsel, move to dismiss the case.
(ECF No. 15).1 After reviewing the pleadings, exhibits, and applicable law, the Court concludes
a hearing is unwarranted. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2010). For the reasons that follow,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) will be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
A. CLAIMS PRESENTED
This case presents claims of excessive force and due process violations arising from an
incident on April 30, 2009 at the Charles County Detention Center (“CCDC) where Campbell
was an inmate.2 Campbell is requesting damages of $400,000.
Campbell alleges that Officer Irby used excessive force against him when he punched
1
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), Campbell was advised of Defendants’ dispositive
filing and the possible consequences of failing to respond. ECF No. 16. Campbell thereafter filed a supplement to
the Complaint that listed various reports and records, but attached only a copy of a letter written to Campbell by
William Renahan, Esq. In that letter, Mr. Renahan suggested that a video of the incident at issue in this case would
not prove helpful to his case at a jury trial. See id.
2 Campbell currently is incarcerated in the Maryland Division of Correction.
him on the right side of his face during a cell extraction. Campbell claims that he lost a tooth and
sustained facial injury above the right eye as a result. Campbell further alleges that Officers
Gregory and Philyaw then grabbed him, threw him down to “make it look like [Campbell] was
resisting arrest and all 3 C.O.’s started punching, kneeling, and kicking” him. ECF No. 3,
Attachment. A medical provider taped Campbell’s eye with gauze to stem the bleeding after the
incident. See id. Campbell was placed on lock-up for three weeks. See id. Campbell also
asserts that although he did not go before the CCDC adjustment board, he was found guilty of
rule violations based on the incident in violation of due process. See id.3
Campbell acknowledges that he did not present his claims through the CCDC
administrative grievance process, but adds “no ARPS 4 are at this jail (Charles County).” ECF
No. 1, Complaint, p. 2. Campbell adds “there was not enough time to file [a grievance].5 See id,
p. 3.
B. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE
Defendants raise Campbell’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as an
affirmative defense and move for dismissal.
1. CCDC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Defendants state that the CCDC administrative grievance policy is explained in the
3
Campbell is currently incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Institution- Jessup. Campbell attempted to bring
charges against Officer Irby for assault in state court without success. ECF No. 3, p. 5. According to Campbell,
“Commissioner sent Statement of Charges to the State Attorney who then den[ied] filing charges against C.O Irby,
and to file charges on this plaintiff.” Id. While this Court is mindful that Campbell is a pro se litigant, his attempt to
bring criminal charges against Officer Irby does not satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement.
4
The Court assumes that the reference is to the administrative grievance process at CCDC.
5
Approximately seventeen months elapsed between the incident and the filing of this Complaint on October 15,
2010. Campbell provides no explanation for the lengthy delay.
2
inmate handbook provided to inmates. Campbell was issued an Inmate Handbook that outlines
the grievance procedures. ECF No. 15, Exhibits 1 ¶ 2; and 2 ¶ 8. The policy calls for inmates
to present their concerns about prison staff in writing to the Commander of Custody and
Security. ECF No. 15, Exhibit 1-A. Next, a staff supervisor conducts a preliminary
investigation. If additional inquiry is necessary, the Commander of Custody and Security meets
with the Director of the CCDC to decide whether to conduct an internal investigation or refer the
matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility. ECF No. 15, Exhibits 1, ¶ 3 and 1-A.
The CCDC also has an institutional disciplinary process which provides inmates with a
copy of an Incident/Offense Report, followed by a Notice of Institutional Adjustment Committee
Hearing containing a list of charges against the prisoner. ECF No. 15, Exhibits 2 and 2A.
Inmates are notified they have the right to appear at the hearing, call witnesses, testify, and
appeal the findings of the Adjustment Committee. ECF No. 15, Exhibits 2A, 3A and 3B.
2. DISCIPLINARY HEARING
On April 30, 2009, Corporal Irby filed disciplinary charges against Campbell for:
1) assault on staff (kicking an officer); 2) disorderly conduct; and 3) disobeying orders (during
cell extraction); and 4) threatening others (multiple threats of death and bodily harm to others)
for his conduct earlier that evening during the cell extraction. ECF No. 3-E. Corporal Irby’s
supervisor endorsed the charges and recommended Adjustment Committee action. Id.
On May 1, 2009, Campbell was given a copy of the Incident/Offense Report. Campbell’s
refusal to sign a receipt for the Report was witnessed by a second correctional officer. ECF No.
15, Exhibits 3, ¶ 6 and 3-A.
On May 4, 2009, Correctional Officer First Class Oliver, the Classification Hearing
3
Officer,6 served Campbell with a Notice of Institutional Adjustment Committee Hearing and an
Inmates Rights at Institution Adjustment Committee Hearing. ECF No. 15. Exhibit 3, ¶ 7. The
notice listed the charges, provided the opportunity to request staff representation and call
witnesses, and stated the hearing would be held on or before May 6, 2009. ECF No. 15, Exhibit
3E. An Inmate Rights form given to Campbell notified him of his right to a written copy of the
charges at least twenty-four hours in advance, his right to be represented by staff, his right to call
witnesses and present evidence, his right to remain silent and the consequences of so doing, the
right to be present at the hearing, the right to be advised of the decision and the reasons, and the
right to appeal the decision within seven days. ECF No. 15, Exhibit 3-C.
At the adjustment hearing which was held on May 8, 2009,7 Campbell explained that he
did not try to kick Corporal Irby during the cell extraction but had only lifted his leg for
shackling. ECF No. 15, Exhibit 3-E. Officer Oliver explained to Campbell that it is no longer
policy for the Emergency Response Team (ERT) to shackle inmates during cell extractions.
Campbell indicated that he did not know that to be the case. Officer Oliver stated that Campbell
had been ordered to spread his legs, not to lift his knee to be shackled. See id.
The disciplinary committee found Campbell guilty of all charges and sentenced him to
an additional fifty days in the Behavioral Adjustment Unit. See id. The findings were as
follows:
Inmate Campbell assaulted a staff member by kicking an officer in the leg
during an ERT cell extraction. Campbell’s actions were disorderly as he
6
The classification hearing officer ensures compliance with Charles County Sheriff’s Policy requirements for
timeliness. ECF No. 15, Ex. 3, ¶ 3.
7
On May 6, 2009, Campbell’s adjustment hearing was postponed due to his appearance in the Circuit Court
for Charles County on an unrelated matter.
4
disobeyed orders from staff and threatened staff during the extraction. Inmate
Campbell has not regard [for] [] the rules of the facility.
ECF No. 15, Exhibit 3-E. Campbell did not appeal the Adjustment Board’s decision.
DISCUSSION
A. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Defendants raise Campbell’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as an
affirmative defense in this case. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA),
prisoners are required to “ ... exhaust such administrative remedies as are available prior to
filing suit in federal court.” Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA applies to “all inmate suits
about prison life, whether they involved general circumstances or particular episodes, and
whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532
(2002). Before bringing suit in federal court, “a prisoner must have utilized all available
remedies ‘in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,’ so that prison officials have been
given an opportunity to address the claims administratively.” Id. (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). Exhaustion is mandatory and unexhausted claims may not be brought in
court. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). A district court may sua sponte “dismiss [ ] a
complaint where the failure to exhaust is apparent from the face of the complaint” as long as the
inmate is provided the “opportunity to respond to the issue” prior to dismissal. Anderson v. XYZ
Correctional Health Services., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 683 (4th Cir. 2005).
Campbell is required under the PLRA to properly exhaust all administrative remedies
prior to filing suit but, as he acknowledges in his complaint, he has failed to do so. Contrary to
Campbell’s assertions, there is an administrative remedy process at CCDC. Campbell did not
5
attempt to raise his claims through that process, and then waited some seventeen months after
the alleged assault to file this Complaint. Campbell did not present his grievances about staff
conduct to the Commander of Security so they might be addressed at the institutional level, nor
did he exhaust his claims in regard to the Adjustment Committee’s determination by noting an
appeal. Consequently, the claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the Complaint will be DISMISSED. A separate Order
follows.
/s/
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?