Lowry v. Fearing et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 6/12/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6/12/17)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
WILLIAM EDWARD LOWRY,
a.k.a. William Edward Lowery
Civil Action No. PX-16-3164
DR. KIM JONES FEARING, et al.
This is a civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff William Edward
Lowry, a patient involuntarily committed to the custody of the Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
for summary judgment. ECF No. 5. Lowry has filed his own motions for summary judgment
(ECF Nos. 4, 7), and oppositions to Defendants’ motion (ECF Nos. 9, 14, 17). Lowry has also
filed a motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 21). The matters pending before the Court
have been adequately briefed by the parties; no hearing is required (see Local Rule 105.6 (D.
Md. 2016). For the following reasons, Lowry’s motion for leave to file a surreply will be denied,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment will be granted, Lowry’s motions for
summary judgment will be denied, and the complaint for monetary damages will be dismissed.
Defendants will, however, be required to brief other matters further as set forth herein.
Lowry, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that he is being held improperly via involuntary
commitment at Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center (“Perkins”), and seeks one million dollars in
damages as a result. In his complaint, Lowry claims that his defense counsel had coerced him in
an underlying criminal case to enter an Alford1 plea with the understanding that he would be
released in 50 days. ECF No. 1 at p. 3. Lowry further claims that, at the end of the 50 days, the
defendant Assistant Attorney General Rhonda Edwards stated that if he agreed to an additional
90 day delay, he would be released. Id. Because the hearing was delayed, Lowry claims his two
expert witnesses who were prepared to testify at the first scheduled hearing, were not present at
the later scheduled hearing. Id.
Further, in an attempt to undermine the validity of his continued commitment, Lowry
claims that psychologist, Dr. Kim Jones Fearing, provided no support for her opinion that Lowry
poses a danger to himself or others. Id. at p. 4. He claims that Dr. Annette Hanson also offered
an opinion that Lowry was not competent to stand trial; and that Dr. Danielle Robinson stated
that Lowry was not competent to stand trial after he received an additional 6 months of
treatment. Id. Lowry states that in February and March of 2014, Dr. Elizabeth Holt, a court
forensic psychologist, testified that Lowry “was sane and should be released to community.”
ECF No. 1 at p. 5, see also ECF No. 17-1 (sealed, evaluation of Lowry’s competence). To date,
Lowry has not been released.
Defendants explain that Lowry, who has a long history of mental illness, was committed
to the custody of the DHMH after he was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on a 2012
charge of first-degree arson. Lowry had been released on bond for the 2012 case when he was
charged with indecent exposure in 2014. On April 30, 2014, Lowry was found not competent to
stand trial and committed to Perkins on May 9, 2014. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 1 & 2. Lowry suffers
from bipolar disorder with psychotic features to include a “history of paranoia, persecutory
An Alford plea permits a criminal defendant to enter the equivalent of a guilty plea by admitting there is
enough evidence to convict him at trial, but maintaining his innocence. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25
delusions, bizarre delusions, auditory hallucinations as evidence[d] by observed responses to
internal stimuli, illogical and disorganized thinking, irritability, intrusiveness, aggression, threats
of violence, impulsivity, lack of insight into illness and need for medication, and poor
judgment.” ECF No. 5 at Ex. 3. Lowry has also been involuntarily hospitalized at Sheppard
Pratt Hospital in 1985; at Harford Memorial Hospital in 2001, 2005, and 2010; and at Spring
Grove Hospital from April 2011 to July 2011. Id. at Ex. 3.
Defendants also clarify that Lowry was entitled to a “50 day release hearing” before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 3-115, but both
counsel agreed to a postponement until October 23, 2014. At the October hearing, Perkins staff
opposed Lowry’s release based on his continued denial that he suffers from a mental illness, his
lack of insight regarding the need to take prescribed medications, and because “following his
NCR finding, he was discovered exposing himself to children in a play area in a manner similar
to a situation in which he has been previously found.” ECF No. 5 at Ex. 5. The ALJ concluded
that Lowry was not eligible for conditional release. Id. Lowry did not file exceptions to the
ALJ’s decision and the Circuit Court for Harford County adopted the ALJ’s findings and
recommendations. Id. at Ex. 6.2
Lowry began refusing his medications in July of 2015. When Lowry stopped taking the
prescribed medication, his condition deteriorated with “more active symptoms.” Id. at p. 3. His
behavior when off medication is described as follows:
He became more irritable, intrusive, oppositional and hostile. He was paranoid
of his psychiatrist and at one point he admitted to having violent thoughts
about harming his treating psychiatrist. In August 2015 he penned a letter to
this effect. He also approached a patient who was known to be extremely
assaultive and told him that his father was deceased (not true). This unsafe
behavior exposed Mr. Lowry to considerable risk for retaliatory violence.
Drs. Annette Hanson and Danielle Robinson also found Lowry not competent to stand trial in evaluations
dated June 11, 2015 and March 9, 2016 respectively. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 11 and 12.
As a result, three clinical review panels recommended that Lowry should be forcibly
medicated. See Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 10-708 (governing clinical review panels), see
also ECF No. 5 at Ex. 3 (March 23, 2016 clinical review panel), Ex. 7 (September 3, 2015
review panel), and Ex. 8 (December 24, 2015 clinical review panel). Lowry appealed all three of
the recommendations to an ALJ who upheld the decisions of each. Id. Lowry then appealed the
December 2015 decision of the ALJ to the Circuit Court for Howard County. The appellate
court affirmed the administrative decision. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 9 (Order, In the Matter of William
Lowery, Case No. 13-C-16-1066333; February 10, 2016). The medication Lowry is currently
prescribed is Haloperidol and Thyroxin. He takes this medication voluntarily now,3 but is still
unable to assist his attorney in his defense for his open criminal cases. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 10
(Psychiatry ITP Note of Kim Jones-Fearing, M.D., August 31, 2016), see also ECF No. 13 at Ex.
1, p. 2 (Affidavit of Michael Menard, R.N.).
Standard of Review
Motion to Dismiss
In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), the Court
accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and
reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Venkatraman
v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)); Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997). Rule
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Int’l Inc.,
248 F.3d 321, 325-26 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513
Lowry’s compliance with medication began in September 2016 after several incidents of noncompliance
that occurred in July and August of 2016. ECF No. 5 at Ex. 10.
(2002) (stating that a complaint need only satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule
The United States Supreme Court has explained that a “plaintiff’s obligation to provide
the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Nonetheless, the complaint does
not need “detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 555. Instead, “once
a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent
with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563. To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not ‘show[n]’ -‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
“[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of
facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 (citing Sanjuan
v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d, 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)) (once a claim
for relief has been stated, a plaintiff ‘receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the
hypotheses are consistent with the complaint’).
Summary Judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) which provides that:
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will
defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).
“A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club,
Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
The court should “view the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmovant, and draw
all inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness’ credibility.”
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court
must, however, also abide by the “affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually
unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.” Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993), and
citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
submission will be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 because materials outside the original pleadings have been considered.
Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, 510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir. 2007).
Defendants first argue that Lowry’s claims stemming from the Attorney General’s
alleged promise of release in exchange for his agreement to postpone his hearing do not state a
constitutional claim or otherwise allege a violation of federal law and so must be dismissed.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s continued confinement is proper as he remains a danger to
himself or others. See ECF No. 5 at Ex. 11.
Lowry’s complaint must be analyzed within the scope of Fourteenth Amendment
protections afforded involuntary patients at state psychiatric facilities. In particular, involuntarily
committed patients such as Lowry must be provided with services necessary to ensure their
“reasonable safety” from themselves and others. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).
Indeed, “[p]ersons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate
treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are
designed to punish.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321- 22 (claim that hospital officials knew patient
was being injured but failed to intervene; improperly restrained patient for prolonged periods;
and were not providing appropriate treatment or training for his mental retardation); see also
Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 837 (4th Cir. 2001) (applying Youngberg standard to
involuntarily committed psychiatric patients). Under the Youngberg standard, the state must
provide Lowry with “adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care.” Id. at 315. According
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, there is “no constitutionally
significant difference between the nature of the protection-from-harm claims . . . and the denialof-medical-care [claims].” Patten, 274 F.3d at 838.
Subsumed within these rights is Lowry’s “significant constitutionally protected liberty
interest in avoiding the unwarranted administration of antipsychotic drugs.” Sell v. United
States, 539 U.S. 166, 178 (2003), quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990).
“[W]hen the purpose or effect of forced drugging is to alter the will and the mind of the subject,
it constitutes a deprivation of liberty in the most literal and fundamental sense.” United States v.
Bush, 585 F.3d 806, 813 (4th Cir. 2009). “Involuntarily committed mental patients retain a
liberty interest in conditions of reasonable care and safety and in reasonably nonrestrictive
Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324.
The Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment ensures that states will provide not only for the medical needs of those
in penal settings, but for anyone restricted by a state from obtaining medical care on his own.
See DeShaney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989); Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324.
In determining whether Lowry’s due process rights have been violated in this context, the
Court must balance the “liberty of the individual” and the “demands of an organized society.”
Youngberg, 457 U.S. 320. In doing so, the court applies the “professional judgment” standard, in
which “the Constitution only requires that the Court make certain that professional judgment in
fact was exercised.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321 (internal citations omitted). That is, medical
decisions made by professionals in the commitment context are presumptively valid. “Liability
may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from
. . . professional judgment, practice, or standard as to demonstrate that the person responsible
actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S.at 323 (emphasis
Lowry principally relies on his April 15, 2014 pre-trial psychological evaluation
conducted by Elizabeth Holt, PsyD, whom he believes had found him to be “completely sane.”
ECF Nos. 9 and 17. Lowry further claims that he has resided at Perkins without incident for
three years which supports that he is not a danger to himself. ECF No. 9. That he had been
declared not competent to stand trial is, in his view, simply an effort by the defendant doctors to
protect themselves from suit. Id.
Here, the evidence construed in the light most favorable to Lowry supports the propriety
of his continued commitment and the lack of actionable infirmities in the related commitment
proceedings and treatment that he received. Lowry’s belief that his symptoms worsened because
he was prescribed medication appears to be a part of the illness he suffers. Even the evidence
Lowry presents in support of his complaint establishes that the key to managing Lowry’s mental
illness is through prescribed medication. See ECF No. 17-1 at p. 17 (Dr. Holt noting that
Lowry’s compliance with psychotropic medication has eliminated symptoms of schizophrenia).
Accordingly, Lowry’s claim for monetary damages in connection with his commitment
proceedings and related treatment must fail.
To the extent that Lowry claims that he is no longer in need of required continued
hospitalization, ample evidence demonstrates that the professional judgment of those charged
with his care support his continued commitment. Put differently, nothing presented in this case
suggests that Lowry’s hospitalization and continuing course of care has fallen so far below a
professional standard as to be arbitrary and unprofessional.
See Patten, 274 F.3d at 843.
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claim for monetary damages.
To the extent that Lowry’s claim is a challenge to the validity of his continued
confinement going forward, it is properly reviewable as a petition for habeas corpus. Pretrial
federal habeas relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the petitioner is in custody, has
exhausted state court remedies, and special circumstances exist that justify intervention by the
federal court. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224-26 (5th Cir. 1987). Exhaustion is
established where both the operative facts and controlling legal principles of each claim have
been fairly presented to the state courts. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir.
2000) (citations omitted). In the pretrial context, federal courts must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over a claim that may be resolved through trial of the merits or by other state
procedures available for review of the claim. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S.
484, 489-90 (1973).
The Court cannot discern from this record whether Lowry has exhausted his state
remedies.4 Lowry, as a detainee committed to a mental health facility, maintains the right under
Maryland law to file a petition for release in state circuit court located in the county where he
resides, where he resided before admission to the facility, or where the facility is located. See
Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 10-805(a) and (b). Denial of an application for release may be
appealed. See id., § 10-805(h). However, the Court is unable to conclude whether Lowry is
currently represented by counsel, has access to the appropriate state court for review of his
continued involuntary commitment, or has availed himself of those remedies. Accordingly, this
court will require counsel for defendants to file a status report on the issue of exhaustion. Upon
receipt of that information, the court will determine whether Lowry’s claim regarding the legality
of his confinement may be heard or is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to
exhaust state remedies. A separate order follows.
June 12, 2017
United States District Judge
Lowry repeatedly states that he has filed numerous motions in his state criminal cases. ECF No. 9. He
claims he no longer has an attorney and that the state court is ignoring his motions. He cites numerous alleged
infirmities in the criminal cases against him for arson and indecent exposure including ineffective assistance of
counsel; witnesses perjuring themselves; being unable to hear the proceedings because he is deaf; and being coerced
into entering a plea of NCR. Id. at Ex. 1 – 5. Thus, it appears that remedies remain available to him in state court.
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?