Snowden et al v. Prince George's County Department of Corrections et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/14/2018. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KENNETH SNOWDEN et al.,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
v.
*
*
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY
*
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., *
*
Defendants.
*
Civil No. PJM 18-160
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Kenneth Snowden, David Francis, Kevin Stewart, Darnell Munden, Duran
Carrington, and Michael Harris have sued the Prince George’s County Department of
Corrections and several of its employees—namely, the Director, Mary Lou McDonough, in her
official capacity, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Operations, Colonel Mark E. Person, in
his official capacity, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Administration, Correne Labbe, in her
official capacity, and the Chaplain, Reverend James Penn, in his official and individual
capacities—alleging various statutory and constitutional violations of their right to the free
practice and exercise of religion. ECF No. 12. Defendants have moved to dismiss certain counts
in the Amended Complaint and ask that Prince George’s County, Maryland, be substituted as the
sole Defendant in the case. ECF No. 21.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART
Defendants’ Motion.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are all Muslim inmates currently detained at Prince George’s County
Department of Corrections (the DOC). ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 10-15. The DOC confines sentenced
1
persons in its facilities as well as those awaiting trial and promulgates policies, customs, and
practices regarding the religious exercise of its inmates. Specifically, the DOC has a Religious
Services Policy that states in pertinent part:
Religious services, study and counseling (including crisis
intervention) are conducted and coordinated by the Center’s
Chaplain and approved volunteers. The Chaplain is a full‐time
nondenominational chaplain available to assist you with your
religious needs. Services are offered daily and/or weekly depending
on your housing unit . . . . If you are interested in any religious
services or counseling assistance, you must submit an Inmate
Request for Information form to the Chaplain’s office . . . .
Id. ¶ 31.
Defendants McDonough, Person, and Labbe (Official Capacity Defendants) are all
employees of the DOC with authority to approve DOC policies, including policies regarding
religious services for inmates. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. Defendant Penn is the DOC’s Chaplain and has
supervisory authority and control over the approval and coordination of religious services
requests by inmates. Id. ¶ 20.
Despite having a Religious Services Policy, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have not
permitted Muslim inmates to perform Friday religious services or daily congregational prayers.
Plaintiffs have each requested to perform such services. Because the DOC has refused to provide
them with the appropriate form to request a religious accommodation, Plaintiffs have written
these requests on other forms or on blank sheets of paper. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. However, Defendants
have purportedly taken the requests and refused to process them. Id. ¶ 44.
Moreover, Plaintiffs, along with several other Muslim inmates at the facility, signed a
petition requesting to perform Friday religious services and daily congregational prayers, which
they say they gave to Defendant Penn. These requests were denied without explanation. Id.
¶¶ 45-46.
2
In the event that Plaintiffs do perform a religious service or congregational prayer, they
are threatened with a disciplinary ticket, locked down in their cell, or held in solitary
confinement. Id. ¶¶ 34-35.
On the other hand, Plaintiffs submit that Christian inmates are permitted to perform
religious services and attend daily classes in groups of approximately 25-30 individuals. Id.
¶¶ 36-37. In fact, Plaintiffs allege, neither Christian inmates nor inmates that subscribe to any
other faith, besides Islam, have been given a ticket, locked down in their cell, or held in solitary
confinement for performing a congregational prayer or religious service. Id. at 38.
Similarly, nonreligious groups are also permitted to congregate and, according to
Plaintiffs, regularly meet in groups of approximately 25‐30 individuals. Id. at 39.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 18, 2018, which they
subsequently amended on January 23, 2018. ECF No. 12. The Amended Complaint states six
causes of action: 1) violation of Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion under the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against the DOC and Official Capacity
Defendants;1 2) religious discrimination in violation of RLUIPA against the DOC and Official
Capacity Defendants; 3) violation of Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion in violation of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against all Defendants; 4) Equal
Protection Clause violations against all Defendants; 5) Establishment Clause violations under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments against all Defendants; and 6) violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendant Penn in his individual capacity.
1
Plaintiffs have clarified that they are not seeking damages under RLUIPA against Defendant Penn in his individual
capacity, which they concede are unavailable. ECF No. 23 at 3. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief
against all Defendants for all counts but seek compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant Penn in his
individual capacity only under Counts III-VI.
3
Having previously denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default, the Court heard
oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on July 30, 2018.
In their Motion, Defendants move to substitute Prince George’s County, Maryland, for
the DOC and the Official Capacity Defendants. Defendants also seek dismissal of the § 1983
claims against Defendant Penn—the only Defendant sued in his individual capacity—for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) prescribes “liberal pleading standards,” requiring
only that a plaintiff submit a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he or she] is
entitled to relief.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must
plead facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). This standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although a court
accepts factual allegations as true, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Indeed, the court need not accept
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations or “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable
conclusions, or arguments.” E. Shore Markets, Inc. v. J.D. Associates Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 175,
180 (4th Cir. 2000).
III.
A.
ANALYSIS
Substitution of Prince George’s County, Maryland
As an initial matter, the parties agree that Prince George’s County, Maryland, is properly
substituted for the DOC. See Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536, 573 (2004) (affirming
4
dismissal of claims against the Baltimore County Police Department on ground that a county
police department could not be viewed as a separate legal entity). Thus, Defendants’ Motion in
that respect is GRANTED.
That said, there remains a dispute as to whether the County may also be substituted for
the Official Capacity Defendants.
The Court sees no reason to keep the Official Capacity Defendants in the case when it is
undisputed that the real party in interest is the County. See Gray v. Laws, 51 F.3d 426, 431 (4th
Cir. 1995) (noting that “in official capacity suits against local government officers, ‘the real party
in interest,’ is ordinarily the local government entity itself”); Lowery v. Prince Georges County,
960 F. Supp. 952, 953 (D. Md. 1997) (stating that “an official capacity claim against a
government employee is, in effect, a claim against the governmental unit.”). As Defendants
suggest, it would certainly streamline discovery to substitute the County for the Official Capacity
Defendants. In contrast, Plaintiffs have not identified any prevailing need to keep the Official
Capacity Defendants in the case.
Thus, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES the claims against
Defendants McDonough, Person, and Labbe.
B.
Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Penn
Defendants next move to dismiss the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendant Penn, arguing that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of pleading facts sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief under the statute.2
2
The Court notes that this argument was not raised in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss but was instead argued for the
first time in Defendants’ Reply Brief. “Ordinarily, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief or
memorandum will not be considered.” Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Broadway Ltd. Imports, LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d
527, 535 (D. Md. 2010) (citing SEC v. Pirate Investor, 580 F.3d 233, 255 n. 23 (4th Cir. 2009)). However, whether
to consider such arguments lies within the discretion of the Court. Id. (citing Clawson v. FedEx Ground Package
Sys., Inc., 451 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (D. Md. 2006)). Because Plaintiffs had the opportunity to address this issue at
oral argument, the Court will consider the merits of the argument here.
5
Section 1983 provides for liability on “[e]very person who, under color of [state
law], 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 and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To
state a claim of individual liability under § 1983, there must be an allegation that the defendant
acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights. Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170
(4th Cir. 2017); see also Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (noting that the
defendant must have “personal knowledge of and involvement in the alleged deprivation of
[Plaintiff’s] rights in order to be liable”).
With only the DOC and Penn remaining in the case, the Court is satisfied that the
Amended Complaint states facts sufficient for an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by
Defendant Penn. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Penn has supervisory authority and control over
the approval and coordination of religious services requests by inmates and that he has denied
requests for religious services by Muslim inmates while simultaneously granting requests and
coordinating religious services for Christian inmates. ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 20, 32-44. Plaintiffs further
allege that they submitted a petition to Defendant Penn in which they requested to perform
Friday religious services and daily congregational prayers, which he subsequently denied without
an explanation. Id. ¶ 45. These allegations state a plausible claim that Defendant Penn was
personally involved in the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection and free exercise of
religion under the U.S. Constitution.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the § 1983
claim against Defendant Penn.
IV.
CONCLUSION
6
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTEDIN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Defendants’ request that the Court substitute Defendant
Prince George’s County, Maryland, for the DOC and the Official Capacity Defendants is
GRANTED. The request to dismiss the § 1983 claim against Defendant Penn is DENIED.
A separate Order will ISSUE.
/s/
_
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 14, 2018
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?