Beall v. Hogan et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/25/2017. (c/m 8/25/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)

flLFfJ
. r'''-;.... _... )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,,:~'
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
RICHARD

IIOWARD BEALL,

ZOIl AUG2S P I:

.m.,

lj q

*

I'laintiff,

,,

*

--

~

v.
LARRY LA WRENCE HOGAN,
DIRECTOR ROBINSON,
TOM LEWIS,
NINA DIANA, Social Worker in Charge,

Case No.: (;.III-16-3678

*

.

*
*
*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Self~rcprcscnted
Dcpartmcnt
Hospital

Plaintiff

against Dcfcndants.

including

Maryland

stan: allcging that Defendants
vote in the 2016 presidential
in the Altcrnativc.
Opposition.

Richard Howard Bcall..Ir.

a Maryland

state psychiatric
Governor

for Summary

committcd

hospital.

to thc

Beall brought this Complaint

(Larry) Hogan and various hospital

rights by interfcring

"ith his right to

have tiled a Motion to Dismiss

ECF NO.5. to which Beall tiled a Rcsponse

Thc Court finds a hearing unnccessary.

105.6. (D. Md. 2016). For reasons to 1()llow. Dcfcndants'

I.

*

01'.

in

ECF No.7.

The matter is ready liJr disposition.

Summary

*

and is a paticnt at thc Clition T. Pcrkins

ECF No. I. Defendants

Judgment.

*

is involuntarily

Lawrencc

violated his constitutional
election.

*

OJ'INION

of Hcalth and Mental Hygicnc ("DIIMH")

Ccnter ("Pcrkins").

*

Judgmcnt.

Motion. construcd

See Loc. R.

as a Motionli)r

is grantcd.

BACKGROUND

-

On Au!!ust 21. 2008. the District Court lor Carroll Countv committcd

.

Beall to DIIMII

after he was held not criminally responsible on the charge of second-degree assault. Slale \'.
Richard /I. Beall. Jr.. Case No. 6S00040935 (Carroll County Circuit Court. August 21. 20(8).
ECF No. 5-2. Defendants acknowledge that Beall has not been declared judicially incompetent
and therefore retains his right to vote. ECF No. 5- J n.l (citing 60 Op. At!'y Gen. 208: Ifill \'.
SIll/e.

35 Md. App. 98 (Md. 1977)}. Beall is housed in a maximum security ward at Perkins.

Aflidavit of Michael Jordan. LCSW-C. ECF 5-2

n 2. 3. 4.

1

Beall claims that Defendants failed to provide him with an absentee ballot or an
application to apply Illr one in the 20 J 6 Presidential election. thereby denying him his right to
vote. ECF No. I at 32 He alleges that he is being unconstitutionally detained by the hospital
administration and was denied an absentee ballot to makc him "look bad," It!. Bcall further
claims that the hospital stalTt~liled to tIle paperwork necessary tllr him to vote or ask him ifhe
wanted to vote or participate in the voting process. ECF NO.7 at 1-3. As relief: Beall seeks
$75.000.000. his release. and shutdown of the hospital. ECF No. I at 33
Defendants Governor Larry I logan. Danielle Robinson. M.D .. a psychiatrist and Chief of
Pretrial Services at Perkins. Thomas Lewis. Chief Operations Ortlcer at Perkins. and Nina Diana.
Director of Social Work at Perkins. by their counsel. have lIIed exhibits and declarations with
their dispositive Motion. ECF Nos. 5-1 to 5-8. Defendant Governor Larry I logan is not a
Perkins' employee and has had no involvement in Beall's treatment at Perkins. ECF 5-1 at 2.
According to their Aftldavits. Defendants Lewis. Robinson. and Diana are employed by Perkins.
ECF No. 5-4. ECF No. 5-5. ECF No. 5-6. Lewis. who has served as acting Chief Exeeutivc
I

Michael Jordan. Beall"s social worker. sees him on the housing unit daily. Jordan also meets with Beall
1110nth. EeF No. 5-3 at 2.

individually and with [3caJl"streatment team several times each

Pin cites to documents filed
by that systelll .

1

011

the Coun"s electronic tiling system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated

.13eall provides no facts to suggest he is being unconstitutional]v detained. Accordinl!lv. this Court construes Bcal1"s
'
claim as violation of his right to VOle only.
"'....

~.

¥

2

~

•

Orticcr and is prcscntly Chicf Opcrations Orticcr at Perkins. attests that although hc occasionally
mccts with paticnts at Pcrkins, he has no dircct recollection of mecting Bcall. and "no firsthand
knowledge of any cvents dcscribed in his Complaint." ECF No. 5-4

~i~
1-4,

Robinson attcsts that

she has ncvcr mct Bcall and has "no firsthand knowlcdgc of any cvcnts dcscribcd in his
Complaint:'

ECF No, 5-5 ~3, Diana attcsts shc docs not "rccall evcr mccting Mr. Bcall"' and has

"no firsthand knowlcdgc of any evcnts described in his Complaint:'

ECF No, 5-6 ~6. Bcall

providcs no artidavit or othcr vcrilied cvidcnce to rcfutc thcsc statcmcnts.
II.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

The Court is mindful that Bcall is a pro se litigant and his pleadings arc libcrally
construcd, Erickson \', ['an/lls. 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007): Haines \" Kerner, 404 U,S. 519. 520-21
(1972) (pcr curiam), Howcvcr, the requircment of libcral construction docs not mcan thc Court
can ignorc a clear Itlilure in thc pleadings to allege ft\cts which sct fiJrth a claim. See Weller \"
Depar/lllel1/ o(Soeial Sen'ices. 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
A,

Motion to Dismiss

To survive a motion to dismiss invokin!! Fcdcral Rule ofCivilProcedurc

12(b)(6},"a

complaint must contain sutlicient factualmattcr, acccptcd as truc, to 'statc a claim to rclicfthat is
plausible on its face:" Ashen!!! \'. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell A/lan/ie Corp.
\', 7\l'olllhfy, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has lacial plausibility whcn thc plaintifT plcads
ftlctual contcnt that allows thc court to draw thc rcasonable infercnce that thc dcfcndant is liablc
f()r thc misconduct allegcd:' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Thrcadbare rccitals ofthc e1cments ofa
causc of action. supportcd by mcre conclusory statements, do not surlice:' Ill. (citing T\l'Olllb~\',
550 U.S. at 555).
The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6} "is to test thc surticiency ofa complaint and not to resolve

3

contcsts surrounding the IllctS. the mcrits of a claim. or the applicahility of defenses."' Presley
Cily o{Charlo/leS\'flle,

I',

464 F,3d 480. 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(h)(6). a court "must accept as truc
all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint:' and must "draw all reasonable
inferences [Irom those tllctSJ in favor of the plaintiff."' E.I. dllPol1/ de Nelllollrs & CO.

I',

l\o!tJll

Indlls .. Inc .. 637 F.3d 435. 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omittcd).
Thc Court nced not. howcvcr. acccpt unsupportcd Icgal allegations. see Rel'ene \'. Charles
CO/l/lly COIllIll'rs. 882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th Cir. 1989). legal conclusions couchcd as factual
allcgations.Papa\all

\" Allain, 478 U.S. 265. 286 (1986). or conclusory Illctual allcgations

dcvoid of any rcfcrcnce to actual eyents. Uniled Black FirefigllleJ's ,!fN'i/:fillk

I',

Ilirst. 604 F.2d

844.847 (4th Cir. 1979).
B.

Motion for Summary

,Judgment

Defendants' motion is stylcd as a Motion to Dismiss. or in the Altcrnative. for Summary
Judgment.

If the Court considcrs materials outside the plcadings. the Court must treat a motion

to dismiss as onc for summary judgment. Fcd. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Whcn the Court treats a motion
to dismiss as a motion It)r summary judgmcnt. "[aJIl parties must he given a rcasonahle
opportunity to present all the matcrial that is pcrtinent to the motion."' Id. Whcn the moving party
styles its motion as a "Motion to Dismiss. or in the Altcrnative. tt)r Summary Judgmcnt:' as is
thc case herc. and attaches additionalmatcrials

to its motion. thc nonmoving party is. of course.

awarc that matcrials outsidc the pleadings are helt)re the Court. and thc Court can treat thc
motion as onc It))'summary judgmcnt. See Lallgh/in

I',

;\/ell'Opolil1ll7 Wash. Airports AII/h .. 149

F.3d 253. 260.61 (4th Cir. 1998). Fm1her. the Court is not prohibitcd li'om granting a motion lor
summary judgmcnt beforc thc commcncement of discovcry, See Fcd. R. Civ. P, 56(a) (stating

that the court "shall grant summary judgment
dispute as to any material
judgment

is appropriate

e1cctronieally
interrogatory
material

faet"' without distinguishing
if"materials

stored information.
answcrs.

if the movant shows that there is no genuine
pre-or post-discovery).

in the record. including depositions.

aflidavits

or declarations.

or other materials:'

stipulations.

Summary

doeuments.
, . admissions.

show that thcre is "no genuinc dispute as to any

lact and the movant is entitled to judgmcnt

as a mattcr of law:' Fcd. R. Civ. P, 56(a) and

56(c): see also Celolex Corp. \', Calrell. 477 U.S. 317. 322 (1986), Thc party moving IlJr
summary judgmcnt
material

bears thc burden of demonstrating

that no genuine dispute exists as to

facts. Pullialll!l1\'. Co, \', Call1eo Props .. 810 F.2d 1282. 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). If the

moving party demonstrates

that there is no evidence

to support the nonmoving

P,1I1Y to identify specific facts showing that there is a genuinc

burden shins to the nonmoving

issue for trial. See ("elolex. 477 U.S, at 322.23. A material
outcome

party's case. the

of the suit under the governing

f~lct is one that "might affect thc

law:' Spriggs \', Dialllond Aula 0lass. 242 F.3d 179.

183 (4th Cir. 200 I) (quoting Anderson \', Liherly La"")', Inc.. 477 U.S. 242. 248 (1986
dispute of material

fact is only "genuine"

if sufficient

evidence

».

f~lVoring the nonmoving

A
party

exists for the trier of f~lct to rcturn a verdict for that party. Anderson. 477 U.S, al 248, Ilow'ever.
Ihe nonmoving

parly "cannot crcate a genuine issue of matcrial

Ihe bui Iding of one inference
III.

upon anothcr:'

f~lct through mcrc speculation

Beale \', lIal'l~\'. 769 F.2d 213. 214 (41h Cir. 1986),

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff

fails to statc a claim undcr 42 U.S,c.

right to votc in federal elections

conferred

by Article

*

1983 lor violation

of his constitutional

I. Section 2 of the U.S, Constitution.

lIarper \', Virginia Slale Bd. OrE/eclions. 383 U ,S, 663 (1996), Moreover.

the Defendants

immune

or otherwise

from suit in their official capacity

or

under the Eleventh Amendmcnt

5

See
are

protected from suit in their individual capacity under thc doctrine of sovcreign immunity.
Thc National Votcr Registration Act ("NVRA") rcquires cach statc to designate agcncics fiJr
the registration of voters in Federal elections.

52 U.s.C. ~ 20506. Designatcd agcncies assist votcrs

in registering to vote. rcnc\ving or recertifying voter eligibility. and submitting a change

of address.

/d. Under the NVRA. states must designate public benefit agcncies to assist with thesc

responsibilitics.

In Maryland. these agencies include the Motor Vehiclc Administration.

local

depal1ments of social scrviccs. local ol1ices on aging. and public institutions of highcr cducation.
See Exhibit 6, lOCI' 5-7.

Maryland's

public psychiatric

oflices for voter assistance.

facilitates arc not among Maryland's

designated

State

l3eall does not allege that anybody at Perkins, including Defendants,

impeded his right to vote: rather. Bcall asscrts that Perkins' staff failed to provide him with an
absentee ballot. ECF No. I at 3. Perkins has no obligation to provide I3call with an abscntee
ballot. And even if Pcrkins was among Maryland's

designated

State onices lix voter assistancc,

such ofliccs are tasked with assisting in cnrolling eligible voters, not providing voters with
absentee ballots. Beall does not allege that he requestcd anyone at Perkins to assist him in
enrolling to vote. On the contrary, Michael Jordan, Beall"s social worker. attests "Mr. Beall
never exprcssed to me a desire to vote in the 2016 elcction. The first I heard of his desirc to vote
was upon rcceipt ofa copy of the Complaint
alleged lailure to anirmatively

in this case:' ECF No. 5-3 ~5. The Delendant's

olTer I3call assistancc

in obtaining an absentee ballot alone does

not suppon a claim under 42 U,S.c. ~ 1983.
Even if this Court found Bcall to havc a plausible claim under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983,
Dcfendants

are immune Irom suit in their onicial capacity under the Eleventh Amcndment.

Thc

Elevcnth Amendmcnt

bars suits lor damages against a state in federal court unless the state has

waived its sovereign

immunity or Congress has abrogated its immunity. See Pennhursl Slille Sell.
6

& /Imp,

I',

Ha/dl!l'lI/al1. 465 U.S. 89. 101-02 (\984), Of import here.

"r A 1 suit against

a state

oflieial in his or her oflicial capacity is not a suit against the oflicial but rather is a suit against
the oflicial's ofticc. As such. it is no different Irom a suit against the State itself."' WillI",
Micl1igal1 Dept, a/Slate

Police, 491 U.S. 58. 7\ (1989): see a/so Lal1al1al1 \', State OJ".'vIlIlTlal1ll.

No. JFM-15-2030. 2016 WL 3570602 (D. Md. June 23. 2016) (finding that suits againstl'erkins
arc barred under the Eleventh Amendment). ~
IV.

CONCLUSION
For thcse reasons. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. Motion for

Summary Judgment. Eel' NO.5. shall be granted. A separate Order follows.

Dated: August

t5. 2017
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

~ Beall does not specifY ifhc is suing Defendants in their official or individual capacities. Regardless. Defendants
are immune from suit in their individual capacities under the doctrine of sovereign immunity because Beall docs not
suggest that Defendants' actions violate a clearly established constitutional right of which they knew or should have
known. Pro('unier \', Na\'orelfe. 434 U.S. 555. 561-562 (1978). Additionally, Beall docs not refute Defendants'
assertion that they have no firsthand knowledge or any of the allegations in his complaint.

7