Safar v. Prince George's County, MD et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/10/2018. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

F!LED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICT 0;' t1ARYLANO

co&R'¥

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

lOl8 HAY lOP

Sal/II/em Dh';s;ol/

FADWA SAFAR,

*

Plaintiff,

q: 10

FlY_

*
Case No.: G.IH.16.3277

\'.

*
PRINCE GEORGE'S

COUNTY, MD, el al.

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

In this case. Plainiff Fadwa Safar allcgcs that hcr rights were violated whcn Defendants
dcnied her acccss to a breast pump whilc she was dctaincd at the Princc Gcorgc's Adult
Dctcntion Centcr inlate-Dccembcr

2013. See gellera/~l' ECF No. 24. PlaintifTinitially namcd as

Defendants Prince Gcorge's County: Mary Lou McDonough. the Director ofthc County's
Dcpartmcnt of Corrcctions: Mabel Smith and Scrgcants Canitra Lec and Shawndra Williams.

-

thrcc Prince Geon!e's COllntv correctional ofliccrs: Corizon Health. Inc. ("Corizon"). a
.
corporation that was rcsponsible for providing mcdical scrviccs to Princc Gcorge's County's
inmates: and Mojisola Adeycmi. a licenscd practical nurse who was stationed at Prince Gcorgc's
County Departmcnt of Corrections and cmploycd by Corizon. ECF No. 24 at 3-5.1 On August 1.
2017. the Court hcld a hearing rcgarding Delendants' Motions to Dismiss. ECF No. 57. The
Court grantcd the Motions to Dismiss for Dcfendants Mary Lou McDonough. Prince Gcorgc's
County. Cmitra Lcc and Shawndra Williams. ECF No. 582 As to Defendants Corizon and
Mojisola Adcycmi. thc Court dismissed Counts 6 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distrcss)
I Pin cites to dOCUI11Cllts liIed nn the Court's electronic filing system

(CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated

by that system.
1The COlirt entered a written Order to this clTcet. and stated its reasons orally on the record.

and 7 (Negligent
remainder

Hiring. Training

ofCorizon

and Supervision)

and Adeycmi's

of the Amended

Motions to Dismiss. On December

an Unopposed.1 Motion To Rcjoin Certain Prince George's
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
discovcry

20(a)(2)(A)

authoritics'"

ECF No. 62-1. Defendants

Motion as a motion to reconsider.

.

neeessarv.

but denied thc

5. 2017. PlaintifTfilcd

County Dcfendants.

pursuant to

& (13).4 ECF No. 62. Plaintiffargucs

Corizon has denicd any liability. "neccssarily

correctional

Complaint.

that through

pointing the tinger of blame at the

urge the Court to interpret Plaintiffs

and to deny it as such. ECF No. 65 at 3. No furthcr hearing is

See Loe. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2(16). For the following ~rcasons. Plaintiffs

Motion is

denicd.
I.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

A. Permissive .Joinder
Fedcral Rule of Civil Proeedure
aetion as defendants

20(a)(2) provides that persons may bc joined in onc

if:

(A) any right to rclief is asserted against them jointly.
respect to or arising out of the samc transaction.

sevcrally.
occurrence.

or in thc altemative

with

or series of transactions

or occurrences: and
(B) any question
Plaintiffs

of law or fact common

to all defendants

may properly "join multiple defendants

will arise in thc action.

in a single action only ifplaintilTasserts

least one claim to relief against cach of them that ariscs out of the same transaction
and prescnts qucstions

of law or faet common

at

or occurrenee

to all." Sallders \".Cal/ellder. No. DKC 17-1721 .

.•On December 14.2017. counsel for Defendants Prince George's County. McDonough. Lee and \Villiams
submitted a letter to the Court noting that they opposed Plaintiffs Motion. ECF No. 64. and subsequently filed an
opposition brief that same day. ECF No. 65 .
..\On December 7. 2017. two days altcr filing her Motion to Rejoin. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Add
Exhibit to Pending Motion to Rejoin County Defendants. ECF No. 63. The Court grants this motion. Defendants
Corizon and Adeycmi have sinc~ tiled a M~tion for Summary Judgment. ECF No: 70. which the Court does not
address in this Memorandum Opinion.

2

2018 WI. 337756. at

* 12 (D.

Md. Jan. 9. 2018) (quoting Charles Allan Wright. Arthur R. Miller.

. .

Marv Kav Kane. Frdrral Practicr & Procrdurr

~ 1655 (3d ed. 2009».
.

B. Motion to Rcconsidcr
A motion for reconsideration is typically governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). Courts have recognized three limited grounds f(lr granting a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e): (I) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law: (2) to
account for new evidencc: or (3) to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Srr
Ul1ited Statrs ex rei. Becker

1".

2002) (citing Pacific IllS. Co.

Wrstil1ghouse Saml1lwh
1".

Ri\"(!J" .. 305 F.3d 284. 290 (41h Cir.
Co

A/II. Nat'! Firr 111.1'. .. 148 FJd 396.403 (4th Cir. 1998». cert.
Co

del1ied. 538 U.S. 1012 (2003). A Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to re-litigate old matters.
or to raise arguments or present cvidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment." Pacific Il1s. Co .. 148 FJd at 403 (quoting II Wright. et al .. Federal Practice and
Procedure ~ 2810.1. at 127-28 (2d cd. 1995). Sec also Sal1ders
School Syste/ll. No. RWT 08-cv-50 1. 20 II WL 4443441. at

1".

Pril1ce George's Pllblic

* I (D. Md. Sept.

21. 20 II) (a motion

for reconsideration is "not the proper place to relitigate a case alier the court has ruled against a
party. as mere disagreement with a court's rulings will not support granting such a request""). "In
general. 'reconsideration
be used sparingly:"

ofajudgment

alier its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should

Id (quoting Wright. Cia/.. supra. ~ 2810.1. at 124).

This Court has noted that "[nJeither Rule 59(e). nor Local Rule 105.10 (providing the
deadline for a motion for reconsideration). contains a standard fiJr the application of Rule 59(e)
and the Fourth Circuit has not identified such a standard:' Bry
F. Supp. 2d 310. 320 (D. Md.). afl'd. 584 F. App'x

J

I'.

Shapiro Bro\l"l1 & Alt. LLP. 997

35 (4th Cir. 2014). Thus. this Court has

previously looked to the "widely cited case" ofAbo\'C Ihe Brit. Il1c. \'. Bohal1l1al1 Roofing, Il1c..

3

99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D.Va.1983). for its reasoning that a "motion to reconsider would be appropriate
where. for example. the Court has patently misunderstood a party. or has made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties. or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension:'
II.

Bey. 997 F. Supp. 2d. at 320.

DISCUSSION
Here. Plaintiff seeks to "rejoin" as Defendants Prince George's County. the Director of

Corrections. Mary Lou McDonough. and two correctional personnel. Canitra Lee and Shawndra
Williams (collectively. the "County Defendants"). who were previously dismissed Irom this
case. ECF No. 62-1 at I. Plaintiff argues that. through discovery. Corizon has denied "any policy
of prohibiting the provision of breast pumps to lactating clients. denies that any of its employees
made a decision to deny Ms. Safar a breast pump. and atlirms that none of its employees made
any such decision." ECF No. 62-1 at 5. Thus. Ms. Salilr concludes. the County Delendants must
be rejoined to ensure that a party is "held accountable for this Eighth Amendment violation." lei.
at 5-6. Ms. Safar acknowledges that ,,[tJhe deadline lor moving lor joinder of additional parties
was November 24. 2017." lei. at 6.
In opposition. the County Delendants argue that Plaintiffs Motion is essentially an
untimely motion to reconsider. that the Motion does not provide sufficient reasons for the C01ll1
to reconsider its prior dismissal of the County Defendants. and that PlaintifTadmittedly missed
the deadline to permissively join defendants pursuant to Rule 20. ECF No. 65 at 3. Plaintiff
replies that their Motion was delayed because they were awaiting discovery Irom Corizon. and
that the discovery received Irom Corizon constitutes new evidence warranting reconsideration by
the Court.; ECI' No. 66 at 3.

5

Plaintiff does

110t

discuss Rule 20 in further detail in her reply brief.

4

Construed as either a motion to reconsider or as a motion for permissive joinder.
Plaintiffs Motion fails. As a motion fi)r permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 10. PlaintifTmay
not tile a motion to rejoin a defendant that has previously been dismissed. In AIesmer \'. Rezza.
Judge Chasanow was eonlhmted with a similar set of f~lets.No. DKC 10-1053.10 II WL
581578. at * I (D. Md. Feb. 9. 10 II). There. pursuant to Rule 10(a)(1). the plaintiff sought to join
defendants who had previously been dismissed from the case. Id. In denying the plaintiffs
motion. Judge Chasanow reasoned that because the plaintilT was seeking ..to add defendants
more than 11 days after a motion to dismiss was filed. [the plaintifll 'must seek leave to amend
the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). and the joinder must also satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a)(1):"
UFCW Loca!!99.l

No. AW-09-1516.1010

Id. (quoting FOI1/ell

I'.

MCGEO

WL 3086498. at *19 (D.Md. Aug.6.1010)).

Judge

Chasanow further reasoned that "[i]t is likely a rare occasion when the purposes of Rule 10(a)
would be served by permitting the reinstatement of claims against previously dismissed
defendants. and this is not such an occasion. even when Plaintiffs supplemental material is
considered:'

/d. at *1.

The Court finds lvlesmer to be on point and reaches the same conclusion. Rule 10(a)(1)
allows a plaintiff to join defendants where the plaintiff asserts a right to relief against them or
where a question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Here. the Court
has already determined that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint does not sufficiently state a claim
against the County Defendants: thus. there is no right to relief stated against them. As in Mesmer.
pJainti ITwould need to seek leave to amend her Amended Complaint to sufficiently state a claim

5

against the County Delendants, and joinder would need to satisfy the requirements of Rule
20(a)(2).6
Construed as a motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs Motion similarly fails. First. Pluintiffs
Motion would f~lilas being untimely. The Court dismissed the County Defendants li'OI11his case
t
on August I, 2017. ECF No. 58. Plaintiff tiled her now-pending Motion on December 5, 2017,
more than four months alier the C01ll1's Order. ECl' No. 62. Whether it is construed as a Motion
to Reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) (which has a 28 day filing requirement) or pursuant to
Local Rulc 105.10 (which has a 14 day tiling requircmcnt), thc Motion would be untimcly.
Evcn ifit was considcred timely, Plaintilrs
mcrits. Plaintiffargucs

Motion fails as a motion to reconsider on its

that the Court should reconsider its prior Ordcr becausc there was a

"signiticant changc" in facts. ECl' No. 66 at 4. The extent of this "signiticant change" is that
Corizon denied any liability in its discovery responses. See ECI' No. 63-2 at 3. The fact that
Corizon dcnics liability, howcvcr. does not change any ofthc facts underlying the Court's
dismissal ofthc County Defendants. In thc August I. 2017 hearing. the Court reasoned that it
was dismissing the County Defendants because Plaintiffs Amcnded Complaint did not
sutliciently plead that Prince George's County employed a custom or policy of denying breast
pumps to nursing women. or that any of the individual County cmployees actcd with reckless
disregard to Plaintiffs salety. PlaintilThas not provided any new evidence which would impact
the Court's rcasoning: thus. construed as a Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiffs Motion is denied.

(, At this point. the Court does not take a position on whether it would grant leave of Plaintiff to amend her Amended
Complaint to contain additional factual dewil.
-

6

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Add Exhibit to Pending Motion

to Rejoin County Defendants, ECF No. 63, is granted. Plaintiffs Motion to Rejoin Certain
Prince George's County Defendants, ECF No. 62, either construed as a motion for permissive
joinder or as a motion to reconsider, is denied. A separate Order shall issue.

Date: May

10

aJ--

,2018

GEORGE 1. HAZEL
United States District Judge

7