Nixon v. State of Maryland Department of Public Saftey and Correctional Services et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 8/6/18 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/6/2018. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
LONNIE D. NIXON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 17-442

:
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND CORRECITONAL
SERVICES, et al.

:
:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution is the motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services

(“DPSCS”)

and

twelve

DPSCS

employees

named

in

the

complaint (collectively, “Defendants”) (ECF No. 21), the motion
for leave to amend filed by Plaintiff Lonnie Nixon (ECF No. 13),
and the motion for leave to supplement filed by Plaintiff (ECF
No. 16).

The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules,

no hearing being deemed necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For the

following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted, the
motion for leave to supplement will be denied, and the motion
for leave to amend will be denied.

I.

Background1
Plaintiff is an inmate formerly housed at the Metropolitan

Transition

Center

(“MTC”).

On

December

1,

2016,

Plaintiff

Lonnie Nixon asked to go to the library to work on an appeal of
his conviction but was informed by Defendant Eregha that the
library was closed even though the library had reopened that
day.

On December 2, he asked to see case management to obtain

copies of documents for his “re-trial motion,” but Defendant
Taylor

denied

his

request.

He

also

asked

Defendant Williams and for a grievance form.
denied.

On

January

20,

2017,

speak

with

Both requests were

Walker2

Sgt.

to

would

not

allow

Plaintiff to see case management even though Defendant Landerkin
had

given

related

him

a

pass.

grievances,

and,

Defendant
on

Price

February

16,

denied

Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff

filed

an

action seeking damages for the denial of access to the courts.
(ECF No. 1, at 2-3).
On

October

19,

Defendants

moved

alternative, for summary judgment.

to

dismiss

(ECF No. 21).

responded and supplemented his response.

or,

in

the

Plaintiff

(ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29).

1

Unless otherwise noted, the facts outlined here are set
forth in the complaint and construed in the light most favorable
to Plaintiff.
2

Sgt. Walker was not named as a defendant.
2

(ECF No. 1).

II.

Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is

to test the sufficiency of the complaint.
Charlottesville,

464

F.3d

480,

483

(4th

Presley v. City of
Cir.

2006).

A

plaintiff’s complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule
8(a), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
8(a)(2).

“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than

a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.”
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007).
must

Fed.R.Civ.P.

consist

of

more

than

“a

formulaic

Bell. Atl.
That showing

recitation

of

the

elements of a cause of action” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of
further factual enhancement.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to a less
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers.

Erickson

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).
pleadings

Liberal construction means that the court will read the
to

state

a

valid

claim

to

the

extent

that

it

is

possible to do so from the facts available; it does not mean
that the court should rewrite the complaint to include claims
never presented.
Cir. 1999).

Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th

That is, even when pro se litigants are involved,
3

the court cannot ignore a clear failure to allege facts that
support a viable claim.

Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901

F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); Forquer v. Schlee, No. RDB–12–969,
2012 WL 6087491, at *3 (D.Md. Dec. 4, 2012) (“[E]ven a pro se
complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege a plausible
claim

for

relief.”

(citation

and

internal

quotation

marks

omitted)).3
III. Section 1983
Construed liberally, Plaintiff purports to assert a claim
that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying
him legal resources interfering with his ability to access the
courts.

These claims, if viable, thus arise under 42 U.S.C. §

1983.
Section 1983 provides, “Every person who, under color of
any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected,

any

citizen

of

the

United

States

.

.

.

to

the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the

Constitution

injured[.]”

and

laws,

(emphasis added).

shall

be

liable

to

the

party

The Supreme Court of the United

States has held that states and state agencies are not persons
for

the

purposes

of

§

1983

and,

3

therefore,

cannot

be

held

Although Defendants attached exhibits to their motion and
styled it as a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for
summary judgment, the exhibits are not necessary to deciding the
case, and, therefore, the motion will be treated as a motion to
dismiss.
4

liable.

Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71

(1989).

The Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional

Services is “undoubtedly an arm of the state for purposes of §
1983.”

Clark v. Md. Dep’t of Public Safety & Corr. Servs., 316

F.App’x 279, 282 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, Defendant DPSCS

will be dismissed.4
Prisoners have a constitutional right to access courts to
challenge convictions and redress violations of their rights,
and, to effectuate that right, states have an “affirmative duty
to

provide

meaningful

individuals.”
“[T]his
afford

to

the

courts

obligation

unlimited

access

does
to

a

not

provide

incarcerated

“a

reasonably

adequate

require

library.”

Maynard, 11 F.3d 991, 994 (10th Cir. 1993).
only

for

White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 727 (4th Cir. 1989).

constitutional
inmates

access

states

to

Petrick

v.

Rather, states must

opportunity

to

present

claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the
courts.”

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 825 (1977).

Plaintiff
Alexander,

does

White,

not

Major,

identify
Holmes,

any
Harris,

acts

by

Carter,

Defendants
and

Swann.

Accordingly, his claims against them will be dismissed.

4

Because state officials cannot be held liable in their
official capacity, the complaint will only be construed to
attempt to state claims against Defendants in their individual
capacity.
5

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Landerkin issued a pass
for

him

to

see

case

management;

Defendant

Price

denied

his

grievance requests; and his request to see Defendant Williams
was denied.

None of these allegations relate to access to the

courts, and, therefore, the claims against Defendants Landerkin,
Price, and Williams will be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that on one occasion, Defendant Eregha
misrepresented that the library was closed.

Plaintiff alleges

that on one occasion, Defendant Taylor would not let Plaintiff
visit case management.

Plaintiff does not allege that the law

library or legal resources were inadequate.

Plaintiff does not

allege that he did not have adequate access to the resources.
Plaintiff has only alleged that he did not have unlimited access
to the legal resources.

Plaintiff’s claims stem from the mere

fact that his movement inside the prison was limited.

The lack

of free movement “is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly
constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.”
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996).

Although Plaintiff

may have desired more access to legal resources, Plaintiff has
not alleged an unconstitutional burden on his right to access
courts and, therefore, his claims against Defendants Eregha and
Taylor will be dismissed.5

5

A prisoner bringing a claim of inadequate access must show
that his inadequate opportunity to bring legal claims resulted
6

Because Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to
supplement his complaint and still failed to identify facts that
would

entitle

him

to

relief,

the

dismissal

will

be

with

prejudice.
IV.

Leave to Supplement
On

August

30,

2017,

complaint. (ECF No. 16).

Plaintiff

moved

to

supplement

his

Plaintiff alleges that while at the

Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup (“MCIJ”), Captain
Dean placed Plaintiff on administrative segregation for six and
a

half

days

without

providing

a

reason.

In

administrative

segregation, Plaintiff was denied access to pen, pencil, and
books and was therefore unable to pursue any legal action.
A party may supplement a complaint to add a claim that
“set[s] out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
after

the

date

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d).

of

the

pleading

to

be

supplemented.”

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

“the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope
of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of
claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.”

United

Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).

In that

regard, Rule 15(d):

in the loss of meritorious claims.
O'Dell v. Netherland, 112
th
F.3d 773, 776 (4
Cir. 1997).
Even if Plaintiff had had an
inadequate opportunity to litigate, Plaintiff has not identified
any meritorious claim he lost.
7

is a useful device, enabling a court to
award
complete
relief,
or
more
nearly
complete relief, in one action, and to avoid
the cost, delay and waste of separate
actions which must be separately tried and
prosecuted. So useful they are and of such
service in the efficient administration of
justice that they ought to be allowed as of
course, unless some particular reason for
disallowing them appears[.]
New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 28-29 (1963).
One reason motions pursuant to Rule 15(d) are denied is
that the claims or defenses bear little relationship to the
original pleading.

6A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice & Procedure § 1510 (3d ed. 2009).

For example

in Albrecht v. Long Island R.R., 134 F.R.D. 40, 41 (E.D.N.Y.
1991), a motion for leave to supplement was denied when the
original claims arose out of an accident at one station and the
supplemental
separate

claims

station.

arose
See

out

also

of
Sai

a
v.

different
Trans.

accident

Sec.

at

Admin.,

a

155

F.Supp.3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2016) (denying leave to supplement when
the supplement would add fourteen additional claims that were
not clearly related to the original complaint).
Here, Plaintiff seeks to add a claim related to a different
event in a different facility against a different defendant. He
also asserts a new theory of recovery — denial of due process.
The claims have no obvious overlap, and, it would not increase

8

judicial efficiency to combine them in one action.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement will be denied.
V.

Leave to Amend
Plaintiff

“illegally
construed

also

asked

detained.”
as

a

motion

to

(ECF
for

requesting habeas relief.

file

No.

a

13).

leave

to

civil
This
amend

case

for

request
for

being

will

be

purposes

of

Rule 15(a)(2) provides that courts

should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,”
and commits the matter to the discretion of the district court.
See Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 769
(4th Cir. 2011).

Denial of leave to amend is appropriate “only

when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,
there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the
amendment would be futile.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178

F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original) (quoting
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)).
Leave to amend may be denied as futile “if the proposed amended
complaint

fails

to

satisfy

the

requirements

rules,” including federal pleading standards.

of

the

federal

Katyle v. Perm

Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525
F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2008)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a prisoner must allege that
he is being held “in custody in violation of the Constitution or
9

laws or treaties of the United States.”

Although Plaintiff

states that he is being detained unlawfully, Plaintiff has not
explained how his detention violates the constitution or federal
law and has provided no basis for relief.

Accordingly, his

request to amend his complaint will be denied as futile.

The

clerk will, however, be directed to send a packet to Plaintiff
for filing a habeas action.
VI.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss filed by

Defendants will be granted.

The motion for leave to supplement

filed by Plaintiff will be denied.
amend will be denied.

The motion for leave to

A separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

10