Bridgeford v. Foxwell et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 7/19/2017. (c/m 07/20/2017 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DOUGLASS BRIDGEFORD, #330-749
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
WARDEN FOXWELL,
SUPERVISOR CLASSIFICATION
RANDALL,
CASE MANAGER WHITTINGTON,
ASST. WARDEN WEST,
CLASSIFICATION DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISOR,
*
Civil Action No. PJM-17-533
(Consol. Civil Action No. PJM-17-843)
*
*
*
Defendants
DOUGLASS BRIDGEFORD, #330-749
***
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
PHARMACY TECH WILLETT
TRIGG, R.N.,
NACEY NURSE MANAGER, E.C.I.,
*
Defendants
DOUGLASS BRIDGEFORD, #330-749
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1556
*
*
***
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
LT. GEORGE HARRISON, Intell Staff
Hearing Impaired Facility,
*
*
Defendant
***
DOUGLASS BRIDGEFORD, #330-749
*
Plaintiff
*
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1765
v.
*
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1834
MARGE AMODIOE, Medical Administrator, *
MERCHANT, Staff CO II,
*
Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 12, 2017, self-represented Plaintiff Douglass Bridgeford filed a paper titled
“Motion under U.S.C.A. §1983 Civil Rights of Prisoners to Dismiss All Litigation Without
Prejudice” (“the Dismissal Motion.”). Bridgeford asks that all pending cases be “discontinued
on ECI [Eastern Correctional Institution] Warden, Staff of Medical
Dismissal Motion at p. 1.
and Classification….”
Consonant with Bridgeford’s intentions, the omnibus Dismissal
Motion was docketed in all Bridgeford’s pending cases, and it will be treated as a Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a).
In support of his Dismissal Motion, Bridgeford states Warden Foxwell and Assistant
Warden West have been very professional and helped him with this Americans with Disabilities
Act concerns. Dismissal Motion at p. 1. He also expresses satisfaction with the actions of the
Medical Department, Mrs. Trigg, and nursing staff, although he expresses disappointment that
TTY services for hearing impaired inmates still needs to be activated by cable network. Id.
Further, Bridgeford, who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in consolidated Civil
Action No. Civil Action No. PJM-17-533, asks the Court to order the prison to stop deducting
partial payments, which he calls “garnishments” from his prisoner account to pay his civil filing
fees. Dismissal Motion at p. 2.
2
Civil Action No. PJM-17-533 (consolidated with Civil Action No. PJM-17-843)
In PJM-17-533, Bridgeford seeks to compel the reopening of Jarboe v. Md. Dep't of
Public Safety and Correctional Servs., Civil Action No. ELH–12–572, 2013 WL 1010357 *1 (D.
Md. Mar. 13, 2013) (a “putative class action” brought by five Maryland state prisoners who are
profoundly deaf, alleging inter alia, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”))
and compliance with OPS 200-004 for deaf inmates. Bridgeford, who states that he is 100% deaf
in his left ear and 40% deaf in his right ear, claims that he has been subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment because he arrived at ECI without a classification, and is not receiving
health care, programming or a prison job as required by prison policy. Bridgeford claims
Defendants are violating his rights under the ADA by failing to provide him with assistive
technology, medical assistance for his chronic care issues, an ADA coordinator, and a case
manager who will arrange for a prison job and prison programming for him. In Civil Action No.
PJM-17-843 Bridgeford claims he has been denied programming, a job that accommodates his
handicap, and the assistance of an ADA coordinator, in violation of the ADA and Maryland law.
On June 2, 2017, the Court ordered Civil Actions No. PJM17-533 and PJM-17-843
consolidated under Civil Action No. PJM-17-533. Bridgeford was also ordered to pay the initial
filing fee. See Civil Action No. PJM-17-533, ECF No. 7 (ordering the Financial Officer at
Eastern Correctional Institution to pay $10.40) toward as the initial partial filing fee.
No
payments have yet to be received according to the docket in the consolidated case. On July 5,
2017, Bridgeford filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in the consolidated action (ECF No. 13),
which will be dismissed as moot.
3
On July 12, 2017, Bridgeford filed the omnibus Dismissal Motion (ECF No. 14). In
requesting dismissal of his case without prejudice Bridgeford expresses satisfaction with the help
he has received from Warden Foxwell, Assistant Warden West, the Medical Department, Mrs.
Trigg, and nursing staff members. Although counsel has entered an appearance for some of the
Defendants in this case, none of the Defendants has filed a Response to the Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Bridgeford’s Motion (ECF No. 14), treated as a Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court shall order the
Finance Officer at Eastern Correctional Institution to cease any and all payment in this case
toward payment of the filing fee.
The Court notes that five days after Bridgeford filed the Dismissal Motion, he submitted
correspondence generally alleging there are false records, corruption and abuse by public
officials. ECF No. 15. Bridgeford complains he receives one pair of hearing aids each year and
must pay for additional ones and that he has dental problems that require attention. ECF No. 15.
These concerns appear related to a letter Bridgeford received from J. Michael Zeigler, Deputy
Secretary of Operations for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. ECF No.
15-1. Ziegler’s letter informs Bridgeford he is scheduled to receive a new right ear hearing aid.
Inmates are allowed one hearing aid per year. If an inmate loses or breaks the hearing aid prior to
the end of that year, the inmate is responsible for the cost of replacement. Id. Ziegler’s letter also
states Bridgeford has access to a TTY telephone system at his request. Id. Because none of the
housing units in ECI have a fixed TTY telephone system, the telephone unit is placed in the
operations area and Bridgeford is allowed to use the telephone. The letter states further that
dental treatment provided for inmates is clearly outlined in Chapter II, of the Medical
Evaluations Manual, Oral Health Care Program provides accessory treatment such as crowns are
4
not authorized services. Ziegler notes that Bridgeford has acknowledged he has no discomfort
except that his tooth cuts his lip and tongue, and Bridgeford refused any offers to smooth the
jagged edges of the tooth. Id.
Of import here, Bridgeford does not state that he wants to withdraw the Dismissal
Motion. Bridgeford does not allege that Defendants in consolidated civil action PJM-17-533
were personally involved in or responsible for his hearing aid, TTY, or dental concerns. Further,
these new concerns appear unrelated to the claims raised in this case. Indeed, Bridgeford’s
correspondence was written as a general letter to the Court without a case number affixed by
Bridgeford. To the extent Bridgeford might want to pursue new claims, he may file a separate
complaint.1
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1556
Bridgeford filed this case on June 6, 2017, and was directed to supplement and clarify the
Complaint. Service has not been obtained on Defendants and no initial partial payments toward
the filing fee were ordered or received. On September 12, 2017, Bridgeford filed a Motion to
Withdraw the Complaint without prejudice. ECF No. 4.
On September 12, 2017, Bridgeford
filed the omnibus Dismissal Order in his pending cases. ECF No. 5. Bridgeford’s Motion to
Withdraw the Complaint (ECF No. 4) and his subsequent Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF
No. 6) will be granted, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
1
Bridgeford is a frequent pro se litigant in this Court. In addition to the five cases discussed here, a partial list of
cases that he has filed in this District includes: Bridgeford v. Douglas, et al., Civil Action No. PJM-16-3570 (D. Md.
2016); Bridgeford v. Folk, et. al., Civil Action No. PJM-16-3487 (D. Md. 2017); Bridgeford v. Bretzler, et al., Civil
Action No. PJM-16-3078 (D. Md. 2016); Bridgeford v. Odifie, Civil Action No. PJM-16-2454 (D. Md. 2017);
Bridgeford v. Carrington, Civil Action No. PJM-973 (D. Md. 2016); Bridgeford v. Dovey, Civil Action No. PJM15-1148 (D. Md. 2015).
5
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1765
Bridgeford filed this case on June 26, 2017. Service has not been obtained on Defendant
and no payments toward the filing fee were ordered or received. Bridgeford’s Motion to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be dismissed without prejudice. The Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (ECF No. 3) will be granted, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
Civil Action No. PJM-17-1834
Bridgeford filed this case on June 30, 2017. Service has not been obtained on Defendants
and no payments toward the filing fee have been ordered or received. The Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (ECF No. 2) will be granted, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court will grant Bridgeford’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the
above cases without prejudice. A separate Order follows
July 19, 2017
_____________/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?