Huffman v. Wicomico County Detention Center

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/2/2016. (c/m 5/2/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
FilED U.S. OISTRICT COURT IN HIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cot.Ri~.rr<lCT OF HARYLAN(l . FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAIWLAND SOl/tltem DiI'i.~ioll ZUlb .JOSHUAA. HUFFMAN, CLERK'S CFF/f'E * Plaintiff, f,T GREENOEL7 BY --_'_ * v. * WICOMICO COUNTY DETENTION CTR., HAY P I: 30 -2 _ reP/I/'( * Case No.: (;,111-16-515 * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMOIUNDUI\1 OPINION Plaintiff Joshua A. Ilut1inan. procceding pro sc. initiated this action on Fcbruary 19. 2016, and. at the dircction of thc Court. he supplemcnted Nos. 1 & 6. Iluninan his Complaint on April 11. 2016. lOCI' is suing the Wicomico County Detention Center ("WCDC') under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983 lor invasion of privacy and violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourtcenth Amendments to the United Statcs Constitution. ECF NO.6 at I. Iluninan April through June 2015. while he was incarceratcd disciplinary segrcgation. ofticers. including complains that from at WCDC and in protcctivc custody or there wcre cameras in inmate cells. I He further claims that correctional female officers. monitored the cameras installed in the prisoners' watch prisoners wash and use the bathroom. See lOCI' No. I. Iluninan cells to indicates that the ofliccrs talked about pUlling the images on thc intcrnet. He further complains that female officers should be announced when they are on a male prison tier. Huninan alleges he had chest pains relatcd to I The Complaint does not indicate \\ hether !Iuftinan time he \\'3S at WCDC. was a pre-trial detainee or serving a term or incarceration at the stress or panic due to these concerns. See ECF NO.6. As relief. hc sccks $1 million in damages lor the invasion of his privacy and also asks Illr rcmoval of camcras Ii'om inmate cclls. The Supremc Court has stated that "[aJ right of privacy inlraditional Fourth Amcndment terms is fundamentally incompatible with the close and continual surveillancc of inmates and their cells rcquired to ensure institutional security and internal ordcr" 1/iIl/SOIl I'. 1'''/lIIer.46X U.S. 517. 527-28 (1984)). Nc\'ertheless. intrusions on an inmatc's bodily privacy \\hich may be properly characterized as "calculated harassment unrelated to prison nccds" may givc rise to cognizable Eighth Amcndment claims of cruel and unusual punishment. !d at 530. The United Statcs Court of Appeals tllr the Fourth Circuit has stated: Much of the life in prison is communal. and many prisoners must bc housed in cells with openings through which they may be seen by guards. Most people. howevcr. havc a special sense of privacy in their genitals. and involuntary exposure of them in the presence of pcople of the other scx may bc especially demeaning and humiliating. Whcn not reasonably nccessary. that sort of dcgradation is not to bc visited upon those confined in our prisons. Lee\'. DOll'lIs.641 F.2d 1117.1119(4thCir.1981). Huffman's Complaint has bcen aeccptcd tllr tiling undcr 2X U.S.c. ~ 1915. which permits an indigent litigant to commcncc an action in fedcral court without prepaying the tiling fee. To guard against possible abuses of this privilege. the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that fails to state a claim on which relicfmay be granted. 2X U.s.c. ~ 1915(c)(2)(B)(ii): see ,,/so 28 U.S.C ~ 1915A(b)( I). A federal judge is obliged. howe"er. to liberally construc the pleadings of self-rcprcsented litigants. S"e T:r;"ks'lII \'. 1'''1''//1.\. 551 U.S. X9. 94. 127 S.C!. 2197 (2007). In cvaluating a pro se complaint. a plaintiffs allcgations are assumcd to bc true. 1'/. at 93 (citing Bell AI/"m;" Corp. \'. TH'OIlIhly. 550 U.S. 544. 555-56. 127 S.C!. 1955 (2007)). Nonetheless. liberal construction docs not mean that a court can ignore a clear I~lilurein the pleading to allege t~lets which set tlll.th a claim cognizable in a federal district court. S"" IV"lIer I'. Dep'l o/So('. Sen's .. 901 r,1d 387 (4th Cir. 1990): see also iJeal/delll'. Cily on/amp/oil. 775 r,2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating that a district court may not "eonjurc up qucstions ncvcr squarely prescntcd" to savc a case Irom dismissal). In ordcr to bring a civil rights action undcr 41 U.S.c. ~ 1983. a plaintitT must dcmonstratc that: (1) he suffered a deprivation of rights securcd by the Constitution of the United States: and (1) thc act or omission causing thc deprivation was eommittcd by a pcrson acting under color of law, Wes/l'. Alkills. 487 U.S. 41, 48, 108 S.C!. 2250 (1988). Defcndant WCDC is not a "pcrson" and thus is not subjcct to suit under ~ 1983. See. e. •((.. ,IIolI/((OmeIT • • < • 0930,2016 I'. COIl/lied. /11"" No, ELlI-13- WL 241738. at *n 6 (D, Md, Jan, 19.2016) (dismissing Detention Ccntcr bccausc it was not a "person" subjcet to suit under 42 U,S.c. ~ 1983): ,I/arsdell \'. Fed. Bl/real/ o(PrisOl/s. 856 r, Supp, 832, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ("[Aljail is not an entity that is amcnable to suit."): Powell v, Cook COl/lI/y .Jail. 8 J 4 r, Supp, 757 (N,D, Ill. 1993) (jail not subject to suit). For this reason. the claims against WCDC must be dismissed,' Further, !luflinan's threadbare accusations are insuftieientto statc a elaim. Hc provides no details to substantiate his allegation that tCmale ofticers monitored cameras recording him in the shower or using the toilet. lie does not allege that the monitoring was unrelated to prison security needs or amounted to calculated harassment. and his concerns that images might be posted on the internet are wholly speculative, In sum. the Complaint tails to suggest use of cell cameras amountcd calculated harassment unrclated to prison needs so as to give rise to a violation of constitutional rights, * 2 Although WCDC is not a person amenable to suit under 1983. because this dismissal is without prejudice. HulTman may seek to retile this action against nny individual officers or other persons whu he alleges invadt:d his privacy or violated his constitutional rights. 3 Accordingly. this case will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.c. * 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), by separate Order to follow. ~/- 5 / ~ 1201.£ Date • GEORGE lHAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

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?