Snowden et al v. Prince George's County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 8/16/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

KENNETH SNOWDEN et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, 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.
On August 14, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 32
33), ruling on Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 21. In that Opinion, the Court,
consistent with the agreement of the parties, dismissed all claims against the Prince George’s
County Department of Corrections and substituted Prince George’s County, Maryland, as the
sole organizational Defendant. See ECF No. 32 at 4-5. The Court also dismissed the claims
against the Department of Correction employees in their official capacity—viz., Defendants

1 

McDonough, Person, and Labbe—determining that an official capacity claim is essentially a
claim against the County. See id. at 5 (citing 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”)). However, the Court neglected to
dismiss the claims against Defendant Penn in his official capacity.1 For the same reasons stated
in its August 14, 2018, Memorandum Opinion as to the other official capacity Defendants, the
Court DISMISSES the claims against Defendant Penn in his official capacity. Defendant Penn
remains in the case in his individual capacity only.
In all other respects, the Court incorporates and re-affirms its August 14, 2018,
Memorandum Opinion here.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court AMENDS its August 14, 2018, Memorandum
Opinion (ECF No. 32) and DISMISSES the claims in the Amended Complaint against
Defendant Penn in his official capacity.
A separate Order will ISSUE.

/s/
_
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 16, 2018

1

Defendant Penn is the only Defendant who was sued in both his individual and official capacities.

2