Bechtold v. Hogan et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/27/2017. (c/m 2/27/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE ()JSTlUCT OF MARYLAND
Southern

Division

*
BRIAN ANTHONY BECHTOLD, #10902

*
Plaintiff,

Case No,: G.JH-I 7-69

*
v,

*
GOVERNOR LA \VI~ENCEHOGAN, et aI.,

*
Defendants,

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brian Anthony Bechtold ("Plaintiff')
officials and personnel.

filed the instant civil rights action against state

seeking injunctive relief and damages. ECF No. J. PlaintifThas

a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. lOCI' NO.2. which shall be granted.

also filed
For the

following reasons. Plaintiff-s Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff

who is confined at Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital ("CTPI!").

claims that

when female CTPII patients arc classified to medium security. they arc sent to CTPll's
Side" minimum security housing and "are released to the community
No. I at 3. lie complains
and subsequently

"North

faster and rcleased."

lOCI'

that although he was approved for and sent to medium security in 2010

in 2016. he has never been sent to minimum security.

hi. Plaintiff generally

complains

that he has been held for many years and that he has been treated unlilirly due to his

race and gender. in violation of his constitutional

rights.

!d lie seeks $75.000.000,00

in

damages.

and he asks that CTI'II be shut down by NATO troops or that the Warden from the

Maryland

Correctional

The Maryland

Institution

of Jessup take over operations

for CTI'H.

state court docket reveals that in 1992. Brian Anthony Bechtold was

charged with two counts of murder in the Circuit Court t()r Montgomery
criminally
inpatient

!d

responsible.

and was committed

care and treatment.

SI.'I.'Slall.'

1'.

County. was found not

to Clilion T. Perkins State Hospital ("CTPH")
Bl!c1l1old. CAEI' 65215C

(Montgomery

I()r

Cty. Cir. Ct.

1992). Dkt. No, 41.1 The docket shows that Plaintiff has receivcd periodic review of his
commitment

and applications

denied and Plaintitrs

for release, Id at Okt. Nos. 70.97.

continued

commitment.

On January 9. 2017. the Court received

The applications

was ordered by a circuit court judge,
t(lI' filing Plaintilrs

have been

Id

action. brought under 42

U.S.c. ~ 1983. ECF No.1.
II.

DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U,S.c. ~ 1915( e)(2)(13 )(ii) and 28 U.s.c. ~ 1915A. the Court must dismiss

a complaint

liled in l(mna pauperis or by a prisoner seeking civil redress against a government

entity or oflicer if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ross \', Barol1. 493 F.
App'x 405. 406 (4th Cir. 2012).
liberally construcd . .1'1.'1.' Ilarris
5897710.

Although

complaints

\', .1011.1',\'1.'11
l!I!allhearl.'

filed by pro se plaintiffs should be
!'ro,i.I'..

at *2 (D, Md. Oct. 6. 2015). such a complaint

No. ELI I-I 5-2730. 2015 WI.

must plead lilcts sullicient

to "state a

rThe state court docket can be accessed at hllp:l/c:.Jscsl.'ardu:oLlrls.~tah':.lIld.lIs 'rascscarch (last visited February 21.
2(17).

2

claim to rclicfthat

is plausible

on its face:'

550 U.S. 544. 570

/Jell Atlal1tic Corji. v. Twomhly.

(2007): see also Harris. 2015 WI. 5897710. at *2 (stating that thc pleading standard articulated
in Twomhly applies to cascs tiled by selt~represcnted
when the plaintilfplcads
that the defcndant

statements.

recitals of the elements

do not sufficc,"

provide the 'grounds'
and a tormulaic

of his 'entitlelmcntj

recitation

alleged:'

Ashcro/i

\', Iqhal, 556 U.S. 662.678

of a cause of action. supportcd

by mere conclusory
to

to relicI' requires more than labcls and conclusions.

ofa cause ofaction's

elements

will not do.").

undcr 42 U.S,c. ~ 1983. which "authorizes

a party who has

ofa lederal right under the color of state law to seck relief through an action at

law. suit in equity. or othcr proper proceeding

for redress:'

City olMol1terey

DillIes at MOl1terey, Ltd .. 526 U.S, 687. 707 (1999) (internal quotations
not itselfa

inference

/d. (citing 7\l'OlI1hly, 550 U.S. at 555) ("a plaintilTs obligation

PlaintilT tiled his Complaint
becn deprived

"A claim has facial plausibility

lactnal content that allows the court to draw the rcasonable

is liable lor the misconduct

(2009). "Thrcadbare

plaintiffs).

source of substantive

rights elsewhere

conferred:'

v. Del MOl1tes

omittcd),

The statute "is

rights. but merely provides a mcthod of vindicating

AlhriJ:ht v. O/im'.

ledcral

510 U.S, 266. 271 (1994) (internal quotations

omitted),
Plaintiff appears to allege that Delendants
Equal Protection

Clause orthe

Fourteenth

discriminated

Amenchnen1.2

against him in violation orthe

Plaintilfbroadly

claims that hc has

Plaintifr also references the Eighth Amendment in his Complaint. ECF NO.1 at 3. To establish a primafacit' case
challenging conditions or confinement under the Eighth Amendment. a plaintiff Illust show both "( I ) a serious
deprivation ora basic humane need; and (2) deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part ofprisoll
otlicials."
Williams \', GraTin. 952 F.ld 820. 824 (4th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted). In order to demonstrate
that he has met the !irst prong of the test articulated in William.'i. a plaintifTmust provide "cvidence ora serious
medical and cmotional deterioration attrihutable to the challcnged condition:' Strickler t'. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375.
1381l(4th Cir. 1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted). llere. PlaintilThas referenced the Eighth
.:!

3

bccn discriminatcd against duc to his racc. without providing any tilrthcr detail. ECF No. I at 3.
PlaintifTalso daims that he has been discriminated against due to his sex. alleging that fcmale
patients with medium sccurity badges arc sent to "minimum security levd status on the North
Sidc" of CTPII and that thcy arc "releascd faster:' Id.
The Equal Protection Clause requircs that ..the dassi fication of persons [to I which a law
applies must be 'reasonablc. not arbitrary. and must rcst upon some ground of dilTerenee having
a fair and substantial rdation to thc objcct of the legislation:"

Sy/\'ia De,'. Corp. ". Ca"wl

Cty.,

48 F,3d 810,818 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Roysler Gual10 Co. ". Virgil1ia, 253 U.S. 412. 415
(1920)).
To establ ish a prima/clcit' case for violation of equal protection, a plainti ITmust show
tirst "that he has been trcated differcntly from others with whom he is similarly situated:' and
second ..that thc uncqual trcatment was the result of intcntional or purposcful discrimination:'
Morrisol1". Garraghly, 239 F.3c1648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). "If a plaintiffmakcs
showing. the court analyzes the disparity under the appropriate level of scrutiny:'

this initial
Sal1d/al1d" C

& D LLC \'. Cty. o{lIon:\" 737 F.3c145, 55 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Morrisol1 ". Garraghly, 239

F.3d at 654)J

Amendment in proximity to his requests for access to cable television and video games. as well as nine hours of

outside recrealion time each day. ECF No. I at 3. However. PlaintifThas neither alleged an emotional or physical
injury. nor has he provided any facts related to his current conditions of confinement. Therefore. his Eighth
Amendment claim fails.
J PlaintilTclaims that he has been discriminated against as a result of his race and gender. ECF No. I at 3. Outside
of the context of prison regulations. courts apply different tiers of scrutiny depending on the classification the law
makcs. See J\/orri.wnl. 239 F.3d at 654-55. Race-based classifications arc subject to strict scrutiny. meaning thaI
"such classifications arc constitutional only irthcy arc narrowly tailored measures that further compelling
governmental interests:' Anaraml Constructors, Inc. t'. rena, 5 15 U,S. 200. 227 ( 1995). Gender.hased
classifications arc subject to intennediatc scrutiny. meaning that "classifications by gender must serve important
governmcntal objectives and must be substantially related 10 achicvcment of those objectives:' Craig \'. Boren, 429

4

To mect the tirst prong. thc "similarly
persons materially

7:14CVOOI40.

880 (4th Cir. 2016) (mem,); see a!so Bourne \',
2014 WI. 2930053.

To mcet the second prong. a plaintitTmust

factors with thc inmatcs in the arcas he
his home. his criminal

account il)r his different treatment).

provc •.that therc was 'clear and intcntional'

('el1/. Radio CO.. !I1C. I', (,ilyoj'Nor/h!k.

811 F.3d 625. 635 (4th Cir. 2016)

(quoting .<')'h'ia Del', Corp .. 48 F.3d at 825 (intcrnal citations
in detcrmining

No,

at *3 (W,D. Va. June 27. 2014) (linding that the plaintitThad

history. and dozcns of other factors" could Icgitimately

probative

App!egll/e, Lt'. 179

srI'. Va, Reg '!.Iai!.

becausc "his sceurity levcl. the stage of his trial proceedings.

discrimination:'

"idcntifY

Ko!he \" Hogal1. 813 F.3d 160. 185 (4th Cir. 2016). rel1 'g gral1/ed.

"not shown that hc shares all relevant classification
comparcs"

standard. a plaintilTmust

identical to him ... who havc receivcd different trcatmen!."

F, Supp. 3d at 533 (quoting
636 F, App'x

situated"

omittcd»).

Factors that arc

intent include:

( I) evidencc of a 'consistent pattern' of actions by the decision making body
disparately impacting members of a particular class of persons; (2) historical
background ofthc dccision. which may take into account any history of
discrimination by the decision making body or the jurisdiction it reprcscnts: (3)
the speeitic sequence of events leading up to the particular decision bcing
ehallcngcd. including any signiticant departurcs from normal proccdures: and (4)
contemporary statemcnts by dccision makers on thc record or inminutcs of their
meetings.

Cel1lra! Radio CO.. /I1C 811 F.3d at 635 (quoting S.l'h'ia Del'. Corp .. 48 F.3d at 819) (internal
..

U.S. 190, 197 (1976). "Class of one" claims, "hich arise "hen the plaintifTallcgcs a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause but does "not allege membership in a class or group:' afC subject to rational basis review. "ill. (~l
lI'i1/mrhrook
t'. O/ech.
528 U.S. 561. 564 (2000) (internal citation omitted). meaning that the classification is
constitutional "50 long as it bears a rational relation 10 some legitimate end:' Romer \', £\'0I1S. 517 U.S. 620. 631
(1996). However. all prison regulations arc valid if"reasonahly related to legitimate penological interests and not an
exaggerate response to a particular concern:' regardless orthe classification. ,\forri.wJI1, 239 F.3d;]t 655 ("This more
deferential standard applies even \\hen the alleged infringed constitutional right \vould otherwise warrant higher
scrutiny. ").

5

citations omittcd).
I'laintiffhas not satislied the "similarly situated" element of an equal protection claim.
because he failed to take into account an)' factors that would be relevant in comparing inmatcs.
including thc severity of the crime committed. length of detcntion. or behavior during period of
confincment. among othcrs. Indeed. the fact that Plaintilfis incarcerated for two charges of
murder could rcasonably cxplain why othcr inmates may have bccn rcleased more quickly in
comparison to I'laintill

Even ifl'laintilfhad

satislied the "similarly situated" element. he has

not alleged any Illcts that would lead this Court to find that Defendants acted with discriminatory
intcnt.
In sum. Plaintiff has not alleged any fllcts to show who actually discriminated against
him. exactly how he was discriminatcd against. and why he believcs his race and gcndcr arc thc
reasons he bccame the subjcct of discrimination. Inthc abscnce of these IllctS. I'lainti ff has failcd
to state an cqual protcction claim upon which relief may be granted.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated hercin. the Complaint will be denied and dismissed without

prcjudice. A separate Ordcr f(llIows.

Datc:

Fcbruarv ~

/k/?-

7. 2017

,

GEORGE J. HAZEL

Unitcd States District Judgc

(,