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)

Download PDF
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

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?