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
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?