Hill v. Malagori et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/21/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 4/21/17)

II

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
,
Southern Division

,.

~I

II: ,.."

*
DENNIS lIILL,

*
Plaintiff,

Case No.: G.III-16-3905

*
v.

*
SUSAN K. MALAGORI, et aI.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending bef()re the Court is Plaintiff Dennis Ililrs

Complaint

against certain employees

of the Montgomery

County Correctional

Office of the Montgomery

County Attorney

seeking injunctive

has filed a Court-directed

supplemented.

ECF Nos. 4 & 7. I'laintifThas

fully briefed and a hearing is unnecessary.
follow. Plaintilrs

request lor injunctive

relief

Facility. ECF NO.1. The
response.

\\hich has been

replied. ECF Nos. 5 & 6. These issues have been
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons that

reliefshall

be denied and the Complaint

dismissed

without prejudice.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff

Facility

("MCCF").

complaint
Medical

against

detainee

then confined

liled correspondence
Susan

K. Malagori.

at the Montgomery

medical

condition:'

with a eardio-thoraeie

County

with the Court which was construed
Warden

of MCCF.

Dr. flowell.

Director of MCCF. ECF No. I. Plaintiff alleges that he is sunering

threatening
consulted

a pretrial

ECF No. I at I. lie indicates
surgeon

who indicated

Correctional

as a civil rights

and Anthony

Sturgis.

from a "critical.

lile-

that prior to his incarceration

he required

immediate

surgery

he

or he

die. Id. Plaintiff

would

condition

alleges

that Defendants

failed to 1110ve lorward

but rather told him to "wait and see what happens:'

By way of Aflidavit.
Washington

Adventist

Plaintiff

Ilospital

indicates

(WAil)

19.2016.

and diagnostic

Plaintiff to the hospital

"extensive.

rcvealcd

and Dr. Ijaz. consultants

for MCCF.

surgcon.

Id at 2. Thc doctors

treatment

plan. Id Plaintiff

threatening.
indicated

damage.

also consultcd

dcscribcd

indicates

and should be treated by surgery immediately:'

take place at INOV A Fairttlx

Ilospital

Pctro. a cardiovascular

condition

and provided
was "critical.

where the proper team and Itleilities

Fairltlx. Id Plaintiff states that Dr. Petro stressed that the treatment
and that prolonging

the decision-making

lile-

that the surgery

Id at 3. Dr. Petro offered to begin the process to hm'e Plaintiff transported

time-sensitive.

a

Id Plaintiff also notes that Dr. Petro

Id Dr. Petro recommended

in Virginia.

due to the

Id. at 1-2. Dr. Ali.

that the doctors agreed that the damage

that the facilities at WAil were inadequate.

available.

of Plaintiffs

ECF NO.3 at I.

immediately

by thc proccdure:'

with Dr. Kathlecn

the scvcrity

he was taken to the

testing.

The testing was done by Dr. Ali. who admittcd
critical and lile thrcatening

of his

Id.

that on October

liJr examination

with treatment

process

were

to INOVA

and surgery were critical and
would compound

the damage.

Id.
Plaintiff states that Delendants
Plaintilf
Prince

states that later that day he suffered
George's

Ilowever.

Medical

Plaintiff

indicates

Center.

Id

at

or surgery

where

that he received

veins or Il.)r the tear in.the "valve:'
treatment

relilsed to transport
another

him out of state fiJr treatment.

Id lie was translerred

heart attack.

he was kept
no corrective

for observation
treatment

for three

weeks.

10

Id

for his blocked arteries and

Id Plaintiff states that Delendants

Il.)r him. indicating

Id at 4.

do not plan to seek any

instead that they intend to "wait and see \\hat happens:'

5.

2

In their response

to the request for emergency

indicates that on August
Detention

Center.

defibrillator

artery

'i 4.

medical

diagnoses

and indicated
Ill.

'1 5:

2) chest

pain:

3) chronic

County

Plaintiff reported a

that he was recently

hospitalized

Ill[ a

ECF No. 4-2 at 3. Medical staff obtained

Ii'om Anne Arundel Medical Center indicating

disease:

at the Montgomery

During his initial medical screening.

and pace maker implantation.

documentation

reliel: counsel Ill[ the MCCF

19. 2016. Plaintiff was initially processed

ECF NO.4-I

history of several

injunctive

systolic

Plaintiff suffers from: I) coronary

congestive

heart

lililure:

4) essential

5) history of DVT: and 6) Type II diabetes mellitus. ECF No. 4-2 at 6.1

hypel1ension:

On August 22. 2016. PlaintilT was transferred
medical unit. ECF No. 4-1 ~ 6. Plaintiff was evaluated
2016. due to complaints

to MCCF to be housed on the specialized
by Dr. Robert Younes on September

of chest pain. !d. Dr. Younes ordered an expedited

cardiology

7.

consult.

!d.
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Mohsin Ijaz. a cardiologist.
ECF No. 4-3 at 4. Dr. Ijaz recommended
defibrillator

evaluation.

medication

on September

changes.

12. 2016. !d. ~ 7:

lab tests. a stress test. and a

ECF No. 4.1 ~ 7: ECF No. 4-3 at 4. Dr. Ijaz also rceommcnded

that

Plaintiff follow up with him in 1-2 weeks. ECF No. 4.1 ~ 7: ECF No. 4-3 at 4.
Plaintiff was evaluated
recolllmcnded

Plaintiffbe

transported

No. 4-1 ~ 7. PlaintilTremained
On September
test evaluation

by Dr. Younes on September

19. 2016. alier which Dr. Younes

to Holy Cross Germantown

Ilospitai.

ECF NO.4 at 3: ECF

at the hospital until September 22. 2016. ECF No. 4.1

27. 2016. PlaintilTwas

without complications.

again evaluated

'i 7.

by Dr. Ijaz and underwent

a stress

ECF No. 4-1 ~ 7: ECF No. 4-3 at 3. Dr. Ijaz saw Plaintiff

again on October 4. 2016. and recommended

that a cardiac catheterization

be scheduled

within

I Defendant also mentions that PlaintiffsulTcrs from syncope. more commonly referred to as fainting. but the COLIrt
did not sec that spccilic ailment referenced in the records from Anne Arundel Medical Center.

3

~i
7:

1-2 weeKs. ECr No. 4-1
On October
procedure.

20.

2016.

'Ii

ECF NO.4-I

ECF No. 4-3 at 4.
Plaintiff

was

sent

8: ECr No. 4-4. The catheterization

No. 4.1

'i 8: ECF

No. 4-4. Dr. Ali recommended

graphing

(CAl3G)

and mitral valve annuloplasty

Plaintiff

was subsequently

evaluated

evaluated

transferred

by Dr. James

(MVA).

by Dr. Kathleen

PlaintifTremained

at Prince George's

County

was performed

catheterization
by Dr. Ali. ECF

for coronary

'1 8:

ECF NO.4-I

Petro. who indicated

at WAIl. IOcr NO.4-I

to Prince George's

Brown. a eardiothoracic

for the cardiac

Plaintiff be referred

high riSK status. the surgery could not be performed
Plainliffwas

to WAil

ECF No. 4-4 at I.

lhat due to Plaintilrs

'18:

ECF No. 4-5 at 2.

County 1I0spitai on October
surgeon.

1I0spitaiuntii

artery bypass

21. 2016. to be

ECF No. 4-1 ~ 8: ECF No. 4.5 at I.
November

10.2016.

'1

lOCI' NO.4-I

8: ECF No. 4-5 at I.
On November
viability

8. 2016. Plaintiff

was sent to the University

candidate

among the physicians.

for a

including

Dr. Brown. who determined

Plaintiff

was not a

for DABG/MV A. ECF No. 4- J ~ 8: lOCI' No. 4-5 at J 3. Dr. Brown determined

PlaintifT was not a viable candidate

lor surgical

revascu\arization

of the viable tissue were not suitable and thercf(He not operable.
On November
complaints

J

9.2016.

Plaintiff

was transported

'1 10.

I(Jr surgical

25. 2016. he was transported

Doctors again consulted
revaseularization.

opinion

that Plaintiff

ECF NO.4-I

'18.

to Shady Grove Medial Center due to
day. Id

to Iioly Cross Germantown

with Dr. Brown to determine

Ilospitai.

ECF

why he was not a candidate

and staff at Holy Cross

Germantown

was not a good candidate

f(Jr the procedure.

4

that

because the targets of lhe area

of chest pain. ECF No. 4-1 ~ 9. lie returned to MCCF the following

On November

Brown's

Ilospital

study. ECF No. 4-1 ~ 8: ECr No. 4.5 at 10.12: ECF 4-6 at 15. The results of the study

were discussed

NO.4-I

of Maryland

Ilospital

conlinned

ECF No. 4-1

Dr.

'1

10:

ECF No. 4-6 at 15. Plaintiff

n:maincd

at the hospital

until Novcmbcr

28. 2016. ECI' No. 4-1 ~

10.
On

Novcmbcr

29.

2016.

Plaintiff

Massimiano.

rcgarding

thc viability

Massimiano

dctcrmincd

ECI' NO.4-I

was

providcd

of thc surgcry.

a sccond

0p111l0n by

Dr.

Paul

'111: lOCI' No. 4-3 at 6.

that Plaintiff was "not a candidatc

While housed at MCCr:. Plaintiff
MCCF I)1cdical staff as well as outside
Decembcr

ECI' No. 4-1 ~ 11: ECI' No. 4-3 at 6. Dr.

continucd
spccialists.

7. 2016. PlaintifT was evaluatcd

filr surgery ancr rcvicwing

to bc regularly

monitorcd

rccords'"

and cvaluatcd

by

ECI' No. 4-1 ~ 12: ECF No. 4-3 at 7-8. On

by Dr. Ijaz. who adjustcd

his mcdication.

lOCI"No. 4-

I '112: ECF No. 4-3 at 7.
On Dcccmbcr
stablc. although

29. 2016. Dr. Ijaz again cxamincd

hc complaincd

of rccurrcnt

Ijaz notcd that Plaintiff was rcfused
Maryland

and WAH.

episodcs

lilr surgical

Plaintiff andnotcd

of chest discomfort.

intervention

that hc was currently
ECF No. 4-1 ~ 13. Dr.

alicr cvaluation

Id. Dr. Ijaz noted hc would continuc

to cxplorc

at the Univcrsity

altcrnativc

options

of
filr

Plainti II Id.
On Fcbruary

I. 2017.

Circuit Court fi)r Montgomery
time. Plaintiff

indicated

PlaintilT appeared

bctilre

the Honorable

County. relative to his criminal

that he had attended

proceedings.

surgical consultations

Judge

Rick Johnson.

IOCr: 1 o. 7-1. At that

and had. to date. been denied

surgery because of his high-risk

status. Id. at 4-5. lie also offered that he was a\miting

consultation

1£1. Further.

prefer

at Johns

Hopkins.

to stay in custody

consistently.
Baltimore

rather

than

Plaintiffs

be released.

Id. at 5. 7. PlaintilT was released

counsel

articulated

so that his medical

\i'om conlinement

County Jail based upon a detainer lodged by Baltimore

5

a surgical

that Plaintiff
care could

continue

at MCCr: and transferred
County. Id. at 22.

would

to the

II.

DISCUSSION
Article

III of thc Constitution

controvcrsics"'I.e'\l'is

\'. Com'l

bccomcs

thc issucs

moot whcn

cognizable

limits thc judicial

powcr

presented

arc "no longcr

or the partics

(1941)

("[Tlhe

circumstanccs.
intcrcsts,

right upon cstablishcd

of

possiblc

question

in cach

case

show that thcrc is a substantial
suflicient

judgmcnt.").

For a dcclaratory

lack a legally

opinion

judgmcnt

to issuc.

upon a hypothctical

lacts'" ,kill({

Uti: 117,1'.
Co.

Whcrc

immcdiacy

injunctivc

that events occurring

and

is whcthcr
controvcrsy,

rcality

or dcclaratory

thc

Illcts

allegcd.

basis. but

Ii liar/tim

moots his claim ll.lI' injunctivc
.
1991) (transler

of prisoncr

.IIage'e' r. Walas,

prisoncr

rcndcrcd

and/or declaratory
challcngcd

undcr

all

bctwccn partics having advcrsc

to warrant

thc

relicf is rcqucstcd

alicr thc filing of thc complaint

issuancc

I \'.

thc
Icgal

of a dcclaratory

in an inmatc's

complaint.

it is

rcndcr thc mattcr moot. Se'e' Slade'

\'. /-Iall/pl017 Rd's Re'g'l .Jail. 407 F.3d 243, 24&-49 (4th Cir. 2005) (prc-trial

rclict):

A casc

300 U.S. 227. 242 (1937): Se'e'also Md Cas, Co, \'. Pac. Coal & Oil Co .. 312 U,S, 270.

IImror/h.
273

which "calls. not fiJI' an advisory

of present

'Iivc'

omittcd).

or

Cil)' orErie' r. I'ap's A.M .. 529 U.S. 277. 2&7 (2000) (citing

C/.\'. or Los A17gde'S \'. /Jaris. 440 U.S. 625. 631 (1979).

Illr an adjudication

ongOIng cascs

Ba17k Corp .. 494 U.S. 472. 477 (1990) (citations

intercst in the outcome'"

thcrc must bc a dispute

to "actual.

dctainee's

release

rclicl): Se'e' also Williall/s \'. (jriffi17. 952 F,2d &20. &23 (4th Cir.
..

moots his Eighth Amcndmcnt

claims

1l.1I' njunctivc
i

&J 0 F,2d 45 J. 452 (4th Cir. 19&7) (holding

moot his claim Illl' injunctivc
rclicf havc becn dcclarcd

rclict). Scction

that thc transfcr

19&3 actions secking

moot whcn the practices,

wcrc no longcr in usc, Se'e', e'.g.. Tml'lroh

and declaratory

proccdurcs,

of a

injunctivc

or regulations

\'. Me'I::. 554 F.2d 22. 24 (2d Cir. 1977):

Bradle'Y \'. .Jlldge's orSllpaior

COllrl, 531 F.2d 413. 417 (9th Cir. 1976): U::::e'II\'. Friday. 401 F.

Supp.

1975).

775,

779 (M.D.N.C.

a(1'd i17 pali17e'171 parI.

6

547

F,2d

&01 (4th

Cir.

1977):

Rappapor/\'.

Lillie League Basehall, /ne .. 65 F.R,D. 545. 547.49 (D. Del. 1975); Locke \'. Bd. o{

Puh. /ns/me/ion.

499 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1974): Wilkimon \'. Skinner. 462 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.

1972).
Plaintiffs

request for injunctive relief is moot because he is no longer in custody at

MCCF and he docs not fall into the exception under the "capable of repetition. yet evading
review doctrine" because there is no rcasonable expectation that he will return to MCCF: See
Situ/e. 407 F3d at 249 ("Because we presume that [plaintifll will abide by the criminal laws of
[the state) in the future. we do not believe there is a reasonable probability that he will return to
the [correctional facility].")
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintifrs

request for injunctive relief shall be denied and the

Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows.

/&tf-

Dated: April"Z 120 17

GEORGE J. HAZEL

United States District Judge

7