Huffman v. Wicomico County Detention Center

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/24/2017. (c/m 7/24/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern

,,

Division

')

.IOSIIUA A. HUFFMAN,
Case No.: (;.111-16-514

I'laintiff,
\'.

WICOMICO COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, ell/I.,

*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joshua I-Iurtinan is a Maryland state prisoner \\ho is presently incarccratcd
Corrcctionallnstitution

in Cumbcrland.

Maryland. Now pending is Ilurtinan's

pursuant to 42 U .S.C. ~ 1983. which hc supplemcnted
ECF NO.6. Dcfcndants.
Licutcnant

at Wcstcrn

Complaint

at the dircction of thc Court. lOCI' No. I:

thc Wicomico County Detention Ccntcr ("'WCDC').

Byrd. Mrs. Williams. and Sergeant Gonzalez.

i'vICO Shovcl.

by thcir counscl. pursuant to Rules

12(0) and 56 ofthc Fcdcral Rules of Civil Proccdurc. mO\'C to dismiss thc Complaint
prcjudicc. or in thc alternative.
Opposition

t()r summary judgmcnt.

tiled

ECF No. 12. I Ilurtinan

with

tiled an

in rcply. lOCI' No. 14.

Thc mattcr is rcady t()r disposition.

Thc Court linds that a hcaring is unnccessary.

Loc, R, 105.6, (D. Md. 2(16). For rcasOns to t()lIow. Dcfendants'

See

Motion to Dismiss is grantcd,

I Service
was attempled. but not obtained on Major Moore due to his death prior to the tiling of the suit. ECF No.
7.8. As will be discussed. the Complaint and Supph:mcnt raise no specific claims against Moore and is thus subject

to dismissal

as to Major Moore.

I.

BACKGROUND
Between April and June 2015. Huflinan

Ilurlinan

alleges that he was kept in protective

allowed only one hour of recreation
facilities.!d

Iluflinan

was contined

at WCDC.

ECF No. I at 3.

custody on lock down status "Il)r no reason" and

time. during which there was no access to bathroom

supplemented

the Complaint

to allege that there was black mold in his

cell and that the kitchen was infcsted with roaches. ECF NO.6 at J. S. IIe also explained
during his limited recreation
complains

time. he was ordered to use the shower as a bathroom.

his cell lacked li'esh air causing him selt~reportcd

COI'D (chronic obstructh'e

pulmonary

COI'D inhaler and purposefully

to request his inhaler.

and had no windows

officers placed a fan in the hall which provided

Huflinan

of his

disease). and anxiety attacks. ECF NO.6 at 3-4. Iluflinan

ignored him when he tried to get their attention

could do about the temperature.

Iii. at 2. lie

asthma attacks. worsening

further alleges that staff would not let him use his emergency

his cell "felt like I J 0 degrees"

that

or air conditioning.

Iii. at 4. IlutTman e1aims
!d at 7. lie states

little relief: and told him there was nothing they

!d.
access to the law library. Id. at 5. lie posits

also asserts he was denied adequate

that be might have gone to the library live or six times. and caeh time his visit lasted less than
one hour. It!. lIuriinan
conditions
ECFNo.

II.

asserts that "everyone"

tiled complaints

and grievances

about the

at WCDC. but they were ignored. !d at 6. As relief. he seeks $1 million in damages.
I.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Ch'il Procedure
"tilils to state a e1aimupon

J

2(b)( 6) pnl\'ides

which relief can be granted,"

purpose "is to test the sufficiency

of a complaint

Ill!' the dismissal

of a complaint

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This rule's

and not to resolve contests surrounding

2

iI' it

the

facts. the merits of a claim. or the applicability

of defenses'"

I'r"sl"y \'. Cityoj"Clwrlol/e.ITill".

464 F.3d 480. 483 (4th Cir. 2006). To that end. the Court hears in mind the requirements
R. Civ. 1'. 8. /Jell Aflanfic Corp. \'. Twomhly. 550 U.S. 544 (2007). and //s!lcro(i
U.S. 662 (2009). when considering
complaint

of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). and must state"a

statements.

recitals of the clements
do not sufliee."

plaintilTpleads
delendant
III.

Itlhal. 556

a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 6). Speci Iieally. a

must contain "a short and plain statement

"ltJhreadbare

1'.

of Fed.

plausible claim for rcliee

of a cause of action. supported

hy mere conclusory

Iqhal. 556 U.S. at 678.79. "A claim has I~lcial plausibility

1~lCtualcontent that allows the court to draw the reasonable

is liable for the misconduct

as

inference

when the
that the

hi. at 663.

alleged."

DISCUSSION
As a prcliminary

matter. the Court notes that WCDC is a prison I~\eility. not a "person"

subject to suit under 42 U.S.c.

~ 1983. Inanimate

objects such as buildings.

I~\eilities. and

grounds do not act under color of state law and arc not subject to suit under ~ J 983. See I'r"ml ,'.
Rel/o.

57 F. Supp. 2d 307. 310 (E.D. Va. 1999) (""ITlhe Piedmont

and therefore

not amenable

to suit under 42 U.s.c.

F. Supp. 1294. 1301 (E.D. N.C. 1989) ("Claims
jail is not;, person amenable
dismissed

~ 19X3."): [kooks \'. Pemhroke City.lail. 722

under ~ 19X3 are directed at 'persons'

to suil."). Thus. Iluflinan's

and the

~ 1983 claims against WCDC will be

with prejudice.

Further. liability on the part of the remaining
named Defendants
31 () ("liability
personally

Regional Jail is not a 'person.'

acted personally

of the plaintiffs

requires a showing that the

of his rights. See I're\'(". 57 F. Supp. 2d at

in the deprivation

will only lie where it is aflinnatively

in the deprivation

detCndants

shown that the oftieial charged acted

rights.").

3

Apart from naming Delendants

in the

supplement to the Complaint. nowhere does Huflinan attribute a specilic action or omission to
any Defendant that dcprived him of his constitutional rights. See Kenera/~l' ECF 2: ECF 6. The
Court would reach the same conclusion even ifit wcrc to construe Huflinan's subsequent
submissions. including his response to DeICndant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 14 and a letter
to the Court on November 13. 2016. ECF No. 15. as attempts to amend his Complaint.

In those

documents. Huflinan references an argumcnt he had with one Defendant. Ofticer Shovel. but
does not allege that Officer Shovel took any action to deprive him of a constitutional right. ECF
No. 14 at 2: ECF No. 15 at 3.2 A federal court may not act as an advocate for a sell~represented
litigant. see Bmck

I'.

Carmll, 107 F.3d 241. 242-43 (4th Cir. 1996): Weller

I'.

D('I"I o(Social

Sel'l's .. 901 F.2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990). or "conjurc up questions ncvcr squarely presented:'
8eaude/l \', Cily o{Hal11l'ton. 775 F.2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). ('erl, denied. 475 U.S. 1088
( 1986).
The named Defendants thereli.,re are also entitled to dismissal of the Complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ, 1'. 12(b)(6):

.1'1'('

also 28 U.S.c. ~1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (mandating dismissal at any

time if the Court determines the action fails to state a elaim on which relief may bc grantcd).
Because Huflinan is sell~represented. the dismissal will be without prejudice and Huftinan will
be permittcd to supplement his Complaint to explain the specific action that each named
Defendant took to deprive him of a constitutional right.

~ Ill/ninan also mentions that Oflicer Kellulll allegedly refused to provide him \\'itll copies of his grievances for his
records. ECF No. 15 at 5. Because Officer Kellulll is not a named defendant in this casc. any alle~ations against him
cannot be considered by the Court.
"'
~
...

4

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12. shall be granted.

A separate Order filllows.

Dated: July 'Z-

Y. 2017
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

5