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
(,
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?