Williams v. Western Maryland Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM filed. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 3/17/2015. (c/m 3/18/15)(kr, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SCOTLAND WILLIAMS,

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

WESTERN MARYLAND REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER
WILLIAM A. MAY, M.D. and
DONALD L. LLOYD, R.N.

*

Civil Action No. ELH-15-207

*
*

Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned case was filed together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Because plaintiff appears indigent, his motion will be granted.
The self-represented complaint alleges that plaintiff, a state inmate housed at the North
Branch Correctional Institution, was transported to the Western Maryland Regional Medical
Center on February 21, 2012, because he had suffered a seizure. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff states
that routine medical tests revealed he was in good health. However, William A. May, M.D.
ordered a urine sample to be obtained from Williams before he was discharged. Id.

Plaintiff

states that an unidentified female clinician who gave him the specimen cup warned him that a
penile catheter would be used if he refused to provide a urine sample. Plaintiff stated that a
catheter would not be used and requested water because he was thirsty and it would help him
urinate. Plaintiff was told that he could not have any water and the woman left the room. Id.
Later, Donald Lloyd, R.N. came into the room and asked whether plaintiff was going to
provide the urine sample. Plaintiff stated he would but it would be a while unless he got some
water. Lloyd responded that plaintiff could stay there all night but he would not receive any

water. Id. Lloyd advised plaintiff that the doctor had requested the urine sample to check
whether plaintiff had used any drugs which may have caused the seizure. Plaintiff responded
that he did not use drugs. Id. at 3.
Minutes later Lloyd returned and forcibly catheterized plaintiff while plaintiff was
restrained on the bed. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states the pain was excruciating and he yelled for Lloyd
to stop. Lloyd instructed plaintiff to stop struggling as it would make it hurt even more. Plaintiff
states that he “must have temporarily blacked out from the pain because [he does] not recall
when he finished.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges that his rights to privacy, liberty, and substantive due process as
guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. Id. at 4. Further, he states that the
forced catheterization violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourth Amendments. Id. at 4-5.
Lastly, he claims that defendants’ conduct constituted an assault and battery as defendants failed
to secure plaintiff’s informed consent to the procedure. Id. at 5.
This court may preliminarily review a complaint and dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '
1915(e) prior to service if satisfied that the complaint states no legal basis for the relief sought.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1314 (4th Cir. 1996). The instant complaint
presents both state law1 and federal constitutional claims.
None of the named defendants are state officials. In limited circumstances, seemingly
private conduct can be the subject of a '1983 suit.

This Circuit recognizes “four exclusive

circumstances under which a private party can be deemed to be a state actor: (1) when the state
has coerced the private actor to commit an act that would be unconstitutional if done by the state;
1

Actions for assault and battery arise out of state law.
2

(2) when the state has sought to evade a clear constitutional duty through delegation to a private
actor; (3) when the state has delegated a traditionally and exclusively public function to a private
actor; or (4) when the state has committed an unconstitutional act in the course of enforcing a
right of a private citizen.@ DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F. 3d 499, 507 (4th Cir. 1999). The conduct
allegedly committed by defendants does not fall within these four categories of conduct, and
therefore is deemed private conduct that is not an action of the state. See Andrews v. Federal
Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, 998 F.2d 214, 217 (4th Cir.1993). The civil rights claims plaintiff
asserts against the defendants in the instant case must, therefore, be dismissed.
To the extent plaintiff has a viable state claim against any of the named defendants, this
court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(c).
When, as here, the federal claim is dismissed early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to
dismiss the state law claims, without prejudice, rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction. See
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).
A separate Order follows.

March 17, 2015
Date

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

3