Younger v. Green

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

KEVIN YOUNGER, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Civil Action No. RDB-16-3269

JEMIAH L. GREEN, et al., *

Defendants. *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Kevin Younger alleges that Sergeant Kwasi Ramsey (“Ramsey”), Sergeant

Jemiah Green (“Green”), and Correctional Officer Richard Hanna (“Hanna”) of the Maryland

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services (“DPSCS”) assaulted him while he was

incarcerated in the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic & Classification Center (“MRDCC”). In

addition to Ramsey, Green, and Hanna, Younger also sues three supervisory employees:

former MRDCC Warden Tyrone Crowder (“Crowder”), Major Wallace Singletary

(“Singletary”), and Lieutenant Neil Dupree (“Dupree”). In August 2017, this Court dismissed

the State of Maryland from this action on sovereign immunity grounds, prompting Younger

to sue the State in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. (Mem. Op. of Aug. 22,

2017, ECF No. 72.) In June 2019, a jury returned a verdict in Younger’s favor. (Verdict Sheet,

ECF No. 166-5.)

In August 2019, following proceedings in the State action, Defendants Crowder,

Singletary, and Dupree moved to dismiss the claims against them.1 This Court denied the

Motions in November 2019. (Mem. Op. of Nov. 19, 2019, ECF No. 188.) Now pending are

three Motions2 for Summary Judgment: Defendant Crowder’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(ECF No. 185); Defendant Dupree’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 186); and the

Motion for Summary Judgment for all Claims in Amended Complaint against Defendant

Wallace Singletary (ECF No. 187). The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and no

hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons stated herein,

Defendant Crowder’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 185) is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Summary Judgment is ENTERED in Crowder’s

favor on Younger’s claim that Crowder exhibited deliberate indifference to Younger’s medical

needs and the false charges entered against him, but is DENIED as to all other claims asserted

against him. Defendant Dupree’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 186) and the

Motion for Summary Judgment for all Claims in Amended Complaint against Defendant

Wallace Singletary (ECF No. 187) are DENIED in toto.

BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the facts and all

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550

U.S. 372, 378, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007); Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 433

(4th Cir. 2013). This Court also takes judicial notice of the State action, Younger v. Maryland,

1 Defendants Ramsey, Green, and Hanna are proceeding pro se.

2 On December 9, 2019, the parties filed several motions in limine which will be resolved in due course.

Case No. 24-C-17-004752 (Balt. City Cir. Ct.), filed Sept. 21, 2017. This Court has recited the

factual allegations in this case in two prior opinions. (ECF Nos. 72, 188.) For purposes of

adjudicating the pending Motions for Summary Judgment, this Court presents an overview of

the events and communications preceding Younger’s assault.

During the trial in the State action, Richard Hanna testified that MRDCC was “pretty

lawless” and that officer misconduct “goes from the top down.” (Hanna Test., Trial Tr. June

5, 2019, 22:13-15, ECF No. 195-18.) Hanna testified at length on these matters, claiming that

he carried out ordered hits against inmates “twice a week on average.” (Id. at 22:5-9.) Hanna’s

comments at trial echo his earlier representations to an Internal Investigative Unit (“IIU”)

Detective following Younger’s assault on September 30, 2013, in which he confessed to

attacking Younger and described his assaults against other inmates that day. (Hanna Statement

to Det. Wright, Feb. 26, 2015, ECF No. 195-17.)

Long before Ramsey, Green, and Hanna assaulted Younger on September 30, 2013,

Warden Crowder was made aware of the assailant’s violent proclivities and the general

lawlessness pervading MRDCC. Between 2006 and 2009, Crowder served as Assistant

Warden to Warden Felicia Hinton. During that time, Hinton recalls that Green “body

slammed an inmate onto the floor” and knocked a handcuffed inmate to the ground. (Hinton

Dep. 24:1-5, ECF No. 195-9.) Hinton discussed Green’s behavior with Crowder sometime

prior to 2013 and specifically told Crowder that Green “was trouble.” (Id. at 133:8-12, 170:19-

21.) As one of her last acts as Warden in 2009, Hinton moved Green to the overnight shift

so that he would have fewer contacts with inmates. (Id. at 26:16-27:4, 113:14-17.) As soon as

Hinton left MRDCC, Crowder—now acting as Warden—transferred Green back to the

dayshift. (Id. at 113:14-22.)

Suzanne Fisher, a DPSCS employee of 42 years who retired in 2015, also brought her

concerns to Crowder. Fisher served as Assistant Warden to Warden Crowder from 2010 until

2013. (Fisher Dep. 11:9-20, ECF No. 195-12.) She became the Warden of MRDCC after

Crowder was removed from the position in October 2013. (Id. at 11:18-12:4.) Fisher recalled

that several officers, including Green and Ramsey, “always appeared in uses of force” reports

(Fisher Statement to Det. Murray, 24:23-25, ECF No. 195-7.) In her interview with an

investigator shortly after the Younger assault, Fisher explained that she had brought her

concerns with these officers to Crowder. (Id. at 25:1-4.) In response, Crowder merely

indicated that reports concerning the officers were to be expected because they were often

first responders. (Id. at 25:5-6.) Fisher pressed the issue, responding: “I know, but if you’re

suspending ‘em [sic] for uses of force, then you know you’ve got an issue. Excessive use of

force, when you’re suspending people, then you know you have an issue.” (Id. at 25:6-8.)

Several years later, during the State Court trial, Fisher claimed that she was only concerned

that the officers would fail to transport inmates to the medical facility on time or “mess[] with

their food.” (Fisher Test., Trial Tr., June 4, 2019, at 230:10-14, ECF No. 185-14.)

Crowder also learned of Ramsey and Green’s violent tendencies from Raymond Peré,

who worked as an Investigative Captain between 2012 and 2013. (Peré Dep. 13:16-20, ECF

No. 195-14.) Peré reported directly to Crowder. (Id. at 13:21-22.) In the spring of 2013, Peré

notified Crowder that he was concerned with “unnecessary or avoidable uses of force.” (Id.

at 29:8-13.) In his October 2013 interview with an investigator, Peré recalled reporting an

instance of “excessive use of force”3 to Crowder in which an officer “sprayed [an] inmate

through the [food] slot” even though the prisoner was “in a cell . . . in a secure area.” (Peré

Statement to Det. Murray 13:9-14:2, ECF No. 195-10.) Crowder disregarded Peré’s concerns,

responding “oh, that’s a knee jerk reaction.” (Id. 14:1-2.) In the same interview, Peré also

recalled telling Crowder “you got some staff here like [sic] to put their hands on inmates. . . .

They take the opportunity, when it arises, to put their hands on inmates . . . . [Y]ou need to

do something with ‘em.” (Id. 16:5-20.) When Peré perceived that Crowder had not taken

appropriate action, he administered impromptu use of force training to Green and other

officers. (Id. at 17:13-18.)

The actions of Ramsey, Green, and Hanna were well documented. At the time of

Younger’s assault, Ramsey and Green had four pending criminal assault investigations. (IIU

Case Histories for Green and Ramsey, ECF No. 195-6.) In the investigation report produced

following Younger’s assault, Detective Murray wrote: “During this investigation, I requested

and received a copy of the Use of Force reports that had occurred at MRDCC between

September 2012 and October 2013. There were approximately thirteen (13) Use of Force

incidents during that period of time. Out of those thirteen (13) Use of Force incidents, one

incident did not include Sergeant Ramsey, Sergeant Green, or CO II Hanna.” (IIU 13-35-

01347 at 14, ECF No. 195-2.) In the State Court trial, Crowder testified that he had an

3 Later in his interview, Peré re-characterized this event as “unnecessary” rather than “excessive” use

of force. (Peré Dep. 14:8-14.)

“opportunity to see all written use of force reports before they were completely final.”

(Crowder Test., Trial Tr., June 10, 2019, 284:15-19, ECF No. 195-4.)

Despite repeated warnings and well-documented red flags, Crowder is alleged to have

failed to take adequate steps to protect Younger and inmates like him from assaults by

correctional officers. On September 29, 2013, Correctional Officer Alade Ganiyu was

assaulted by inmate Raymond Lee. (Younger Dep. 30:15-37:17, ECF No. 185-5.) The next

day, on September 30, 2013, Ramsey, Green, and Hanna assaulted Younger and other inmates

in misplaced retaliation for the assault on Officer Ganiyu. (Hanna Dep. 62:7-15, ECF No.

185-3; Younger Dep. 67:6-68:21.) Later that day, Ramsey and Green returned and transported

Younger to the medical unit, where he was treated by a nurse and Virenda V. Chhunchha,

M.D. (Younger Dep. 96:9-13; Chhunchha Dep. 21:3-4, ECF No. 185-15.) Following his

assault, Younger was administratively charged in connection with the assault against Ganiyu

and was required to serve a term of solitary confinement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “shall grant

summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A

material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”

Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Thus, summary judgment is proper “only when no

‘reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Monon Corp. v. Stoughton

Trailers, Inc., 239 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255)). When

considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge’s function is limited to determining

whether sufficient evidence exists on a claimed factual dispute to warrant submission of the

matter to a jury for resolution at trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

In undertaking this inquiry, this Court must consider the facts and all reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Libertarian Party of Va., 718

F.3d at 312; see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). However, this Court must also

abide by its affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from

going to trial. Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993). If the evidence presented

by the nonmoving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary

judgment must be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. On the other hand, a party opposing

summary judgment must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt

as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

(1986); see also In re Apex Express Corp., 190 F.3d 624, 633 (4th Cir. 1999). As this Court has

previously explained, a “party cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact through mere

speculation or compilation of inferences.” Shin v. Shalala, 166 F. Supp. 2d 373, 375 (D. Md.

2001) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Admissibility of IIU Reports.

Defendant Crowder argues that there is no “admissible evidence” indicating that he

knew about “widespread and pervasive premeditated and retaliatory assaults on inmates.”

(Crowder Mot. 17, ECF No. 185-1.) In his Response, Plaintiff characterizes this argument as

a “preview” of Crowder’s expected attempts to exclude Internal Investigative Unit reports

concerning Younger’s assault, and counters that the IIU reports are admissible as public

records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). (Younger Resp. 41, ECF No. 195.) Crowder

has since filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude some of these materials from evidence at

trial, contending that the IIU reports do not fall within the ambit of Rule 803(8). (ECF Nos.

205, 206.)

At this stage, this Court need not resolve whether the IIU reports, or some portion

thereof, would be admissible at trial. At summary judgment, “the relevant question is not the

admissibility of the evidence’s current form but whether it can be presented in an admissible

form at trial.” Manzur v. Daney, PWG-14-2268, 2017 WL 930125, at *1 n.2 (D. Md. Mar. 9,

2017) (quoting Steven S. Gensler, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules & Commentary, R. 56

(West 2017)). Much of the relevant material presented in the IIU reports may be presented in

the form of witness testimony. For example, Plaintiff intends to call Fisher, Hinton, and Peré

at trial (see Plaintiff’s Proposed Witness and Exhibit List, ECF No. 191), each of whom may

testify to the same matters disclosed in the course of the IIU investigations. Accordingly, this

Court will consider the IIU reports in their entirety, including statements made to IIU

detectives, to resolve the pending summary judgment motions.

II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

Dupree seeks dismissal of Younger’s claims based on his failure to fully exhaust his

administrative remedies in accordance with the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (Dupree Mot. 3-16, ECF No. 186-1.) The PLRA provides in pertinent

part that:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983

of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison,

or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available

are exhausted.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). For purposes of the PLRA, “the term ‘prisoner’ means any person

incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). The phrase “prison

conditions” encompasses “all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other

wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002).

Notably, administrative exhaustion under § 1997e(a) is not a jurisdictional requirement.

Rather, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense to be pleaded

and proven by the defendants. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215-16, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007);

Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.2d 674, 682 (4th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, a

claim that has not been exhausted may not be considered by this Court. See Bock, 549 U.S. at

220, 127 S. Ct. 910. In other words, exhaustion is mandatory. Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850,

1857 (2016). Therefore, a court ordinarily may not excuse a failure to exhaust. Ross, 136 S. Ct.

at 1856 (citing Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 337, 120 S. Ct. 2246 (2000) (explaining “[t]he

mandatory ‘shall’ ... normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”)).

A prisoner must follow the required procedural steps in order to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725, 729 (4th Cir. 2008); see Langford

v. Couch, 50 F. Supp. 2d 544, 548 (E.D. Va. 1999) (“[T]he ... PLRA amendment made clear that

exhaustion is now mandatory.”). Exhaustion requires completion of “the administrative

review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines.”

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006). The Court is nevertheless

“obligated to ensure that any defects in [administrative] exhaustion were not procured from

the action or inaction of prison officials.” Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225

(10th Cir. 2007); see Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006).

A prisoner is only required to exhaust “available” remedies that “are capable of use to

obtain some relief for the action complained of.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016)

(citation and quotation marks omitted). In Ross, the Supreme Court identified three

circumstances in which an administrative remedy procedure may be unavailable: (1) if it

operates as a simple “dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any

relief to aggrieved inmates”; (2) if the administrative scheme is “so confusing” or “opaque that

it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use”; or (3) if prison administrators “thwart

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,

misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 1859-60.

In this case, the parties spar over the extent to which the Maryland Department of

Public Safety and Correctional Services’ administrative remedy procedure (“ARP”) is

“available” upon the initiation of a parallel investigation by the Internal Investigative Unit.

Under the ARP process, an inmate must first file a request for administrative remedy with the

prison’s warden. Department of Correction Directive (“DCD”) 185-002 § V.B.1; see also DCD

185-003. If the warden denies the ARP or fails to respond to it within an established time

frame, the prisoner may file an appeal to the Commissioner of Corrections. Next, if the

Commissioner of Corrections denies the inmate’s appeal, he may file a grievance with the

Inmate Grievance Office. Md. Code Regs. (“COMAR”) 12.02.28.18; Md. Code Ann., Corr.

Servs. § 10-206(a); COMAR 12.07.01.05(B). The prisoner’s IGO filing must attach several

documents, including: the initial request for administrative remedy, the warden’s response to

that request, a copy of the ARP appeal filed with the Commissioner of Correction, and a copy

of the Commissioner’s response. COMAR 12.07.01.04(B)(9)(a). Upon receipt, the IGO

conducts a “preliminary review” of the submission and may dismiss the complaint upon

determination that it is “wholly lacking in merit on its face.” Corr. Servs. 10-207(a)-(b)(1);

COMAR 12.07.01.06A-B.

If the IGO is unable to determine that the complaint is meritless, it must refer the

matter to the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings for adjudication by an

administrative law judge. Corr. Servs. § 10-207(c); COMAR 12.07.01.07A. If the ALJ

concludes that the inmate’s complaint is wholly or partially meritorious, the decision

constitutes a recommendation to the Secretary of DPSCS, who must make a final agency

determination within fifteen days after receipt of the proposed decision of the ALJ. See

COMAR 12.07.01.10(B); Corr. Servs. § 10-209(b)(2)(C). The inmate may seek judicial review

of this decision, as well as of the IGO’s decision to dismiss on preliminary review and the

ALJ’s decision to dismiss. Corr. Servs. § 10-210(b)(1). Judicial review in state court is not

required to satisfy the PLRA’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286

F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002).

The ARP process is not the only means of pursuing complaints against Maryland prison

officials. Separately, the Internal Investigative Unit may investigate allegations of employee

misconduct, including the use of excessive force. Md. Code Regs. 12.11.01.05(A)(3). When

such an investigation is undertaken, the Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services’

regulations direct the warden to dismiss a prisoner grievance if it shares the “same basis” as a

pending IIU investigation. DCD 185-003 § VI.N.4. The dismissal must state: “Since this case

shall be investigated by the IIU, no further action shall be taken within the ARP process.” Id.

In Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016), the Supreme Court considered, inter alia,

whether Maryland’s ARP process was truly “available” for purposes of the PLRA upon the

initiation of an IIU investigation. The Court noted that Maryland’s grievance process had

“some bewildering features” and expressed exasperation with the confounding interplay

between the ARP and IIU process. Id. at 1860. On the one hand, the Court observed,

Maryland prison wardens typically deny an ARP grievance while an IIU inquiry was underway.

Id. at 1860-61. On the other hand, some prisoners were able to appeal the warden’s dismissal

based on the IIU inquiry, pursue their claims up the chain of the IGO, and receive a decision

on the merits. Id. at 1861. Ultimately, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit with

instructions to undertake a “thorough review” of ARP materials to determine the extent to

which the ARP process was in fact “available” to litigants upon the commencement of an IIU

inquiry.

Since Ross, this Court has repeatedly held that the availability of the IIU process “closes

the door” to the ARP process. Brightwell v. Hershberger, DKC-11-3278, 2016 WL 4537766, at

*8 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2016). In other words, the administrative remedy procedure is rendered

unavailable upon the commencement of an investigation by the Internal Investigative Unit.

This conclusion is supported by the Department’s regulations, discussed supra, which directs

wardens to dismiss grievances upon determining that a parallel IIU investigation is underway.

Accordingly, an IIU investigation fully satisfies the PLRA’ exhaustion requirement. See

Carmichael v. Buss, TDC-14-3037, 2017 WL 2537225, at *5 (D. Md. June 9, 2017); Oakes v. Dep’t

of Pub. Safety, GLR-14-2002, 2016 WL 6822470, at *4-5 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2016); Brightwell, 2016

WL 4537766, at *8.

Defendants contend that Brightwell and Oakes are fatally flawed decisions because they

ignore that the inmate-plaintiffs in those cases were able to proceed through the ARP process

despite the existence of an IIU investigation. In a similar vein, Defendants suggest that the

ARP process remained available to Younger despite the IIU investigation because another

inmate, Raymond Lee, was able to successfully proceed through the ARP procedures. (Dupree

Mot. 12, ECF No. 186-1.) An “available” administrative process, however, cannot turn on a

petitioner’s steadfast refusal to accept the Department’s own procedural rules, which require

dismissal of grievances when a parallel IIU investigation is underway. In the words of the

United States Supreme Court, this “seemingly unusual process” is “perplexing in relation to

normal appellate procedure.” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1861; see also Carmichael, 2017 WL 2537225, at

*5 (discussing how the Supreme Court revealed the “absurdity of this approach” in Ross). A

process which is only “available” to the extent that a petitioner seeks to circumvent it through

dogged, and evidently meritless, appeals is in fact not “available” at all. It is too “opaque” to

be “capable of use.” Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859.

In this case, Younger claims that he “kept filling” out timely ARPs but “never heard

back” because he had been transferred from MRDCC to another institution to serve a term

of solitary confinement, a punishment imposed for his alleged involvement in the Ganiyu

assault. (Younger Dep. 157:5-158:13.) Dupree has attached to his Motion for Summary

Judgment the declaration of a previously undisclosed witness, Executive Director of the IGO

F. Todd Taylor, Jr., who avers that the IGO’s records contain only one grievance filed by

Younger dated March 28, 2014 and that the IGO dismissed the grievance on November 25,

2014. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 186-4.) Younger claims that he was unable to present

relevant documents to the IGO for its review because those documents had been confiscated

from him when he was committed to solitary confinement. (Younger Resp. 48, ECF No. 195.)

The Court need not resolve disputes concerning Younger’s adherence to the ARP

process because the IIU investigation satisfied his obligation to subject his claims to

administrative exhaustion. In this case, there is no dispute that the IIU undertook an

investigation concerning Younger’s assault. Had Younger filed an ARP within the allotted

time period, it would have been subject to dismissal pursuant to DCD 185-003 § VI.N.4. The

mere fact that Younger potentially could have skirted around this rule by advancing his claims

up the chain of review is of no great moment. Such a procedural mechanism is not truly

“available” in any meaningful sense and Younger was not required to pursue it. Accordingly,

Younger has satisfied his administrative exhaustion requirements and the PLRA does not bar

his claims.

III. Res Judicata and Judicial Estoppel.

In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Crowder argues that he is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law on all claims asserted against him based on the doctrine of res

judicata and principles of judicial estoppel. (Crowder Mot. ¶¶ 1, 5, ECF No. 185.) Defendants

Dupree and Singletary have adopted these portions of Crowder’s Motion. (Dupree Mot. 3,

16, ECF No. 186-1; Singletary Mot. 3, ECF No. 187-1.) These same arguments were presented

in the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and were rejected by this Court. (ECF No. 188.)

Accordingly, this Opinion does not address these arguments.

IV. Younger’s State Law Claims Against Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary.

In Counts Four, Eight, and Nine, Younger brings claims under Maryland law against

Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary. In Count Four, Younger sues for violations of Maryland

Declaration of Rights, Article 24. Specifically, Younger alleges violations of his right under

the Maryland Declaration of Rights “to bodily integrity, to be secure in his person from

excessive force, and to be free from known risks of serious physical harm.” (Am. Compl. ¶

122, ECF No. 140.) In Count Eight, Younger brings a claim of negligent retention, training,

and supervision against Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary. Finally, in Count Nine, Younger

alleges that Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary acted negligently.

Crowder argues that he is immune to these claims under the Maryland Tort Claims Act

because “Mr. Younger does not allege, and there is no evidence in the record to show, that

Mr. Crowder acted with malice or gross negligence.” (Crowder Mot. 11, ECF No. 185-1.)

Dupree and Singletary do not join this argument.

The Maryland Tort Claims Act affords immunity to state officials for tortious acts or

omissions “committed within the scope of their duties when the violations are made ‘without

malice or gross negligence.’” Housley v. Holquist, 879 F. Supp. 2d 472, 482–83 (D. Md. 2011)

(quoting Lee v. Cline, 863 A.2d 297, 304 (Md. 2004)). In this context, “malice” means “actual

malice” or “conduct ‘characterized by evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, knowing and

deliberate wrongdoing, ill-will or fraud.’” Lee v. Cline, 384 Md. 245, 268, 863 A.2d 297, 311

(2004). “[A]n officer’s actions are grossly negligent ‘when they are ‘so heedless and incautious

as necessarily to be deemed unlawful and wanton, manifesting such a gross departure from

what would be the conduct of an ordinarily careful and prudent person under the same

circumstances so as to furnish evidence of indifference to consequences.’” Housley v. Holquist,

879 F. Supp. 2d 472, 482-83 (D. Md. 2011) (quoting Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 536 (4th

Cir. 2011)). The Fourth Circuit has made clear that “[w]hether an officer’s actions are grossly

negligent, and therefore unprotected by statutory immunity, is generally a question for the

jury.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 536 (citing Taylor v. Harford County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 862 A.2d 1026,

1034 (Md. 2004)).

Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of fact concerning

whether Crowder exhibited malice or gross negligence.4 Throughout his tenure at MRDCC,

4 As noted in this Court’s prior Memorandum Opinion, Younger has withdrawn his gross negligence

cause of action. (Mem. Op. 22 n.9, ECF No. 188.) Nevertheless, he has sufficiently alleged gross negligence.

A plaintiff may pursue a negligence claim against a state official so long as the plaintiff has also alleged facts

supporting a gross negligence claim. See Catterton v. Coale, 84 Md. App. 337, 579 A.2d 781 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.

Crowder’s staff repeatedly warned him about the dangers that Ramsey, Green, and Hanna

posed to inmates. There is evidence that Crowder chose to disregard these warnings rather

than take appropriate corrective action. For example, there is evidence that Crowder brushed

aside Fisher’s concerns about Ramsey and Green’s frequent appearance in use of force reports;

disregarded Peré’s complaints about inmate abuses; turned a blind eye to pervasive violence

against inmates; and even acted to ensure that Green was placed near inmates despite his

predecessor’s warnings that he was “trouble” and efforts to remove him from the prison

population. This evidence is sufficient to generate a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Crowder displayed, at the very least, an “indifference to [the] consequences” of

permitting Ramsey, Green, and Hanna to go unchecked. Accordingly, Younger’s state law

claims may proceed to a jury.

V. Younger’s Incarceration Status.

As in their motions to dismiss, Defendants argue in their summary judgment

submissions that Younger was not a “pre-trial detainee” but rather a full-fledged prisoner. The

distinction is material because a different legal framework may apply to Younger’s state and

federal constitutional claims depending on his incarceration status. (Crowder Mot. 15, ECF

No. 185-1.) In his Motion to Dismiss, Crowder sought dismissal of Younger’s claims under

Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights because Younger was a prisoner, not a pre-

1990) (holding that negligence claim against a county social worker should not have been dismissed as barred

by the MTCA because plaintiff alleged that defendant social worker fabricated a report, thereby exhibiting

malice or gross negligence); Ross v. Cecil Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 878 F. Supp. 2d 606, 623 (D. Md. 2012) (“The

complaint need not expressly assert that the defendants acted with malice or gross negligence if it ‘alleges facts

that . . . could establish actual malice if ultimately supported by evidence and believed by a fact finder.’” (quoting

Muhammad v. Maryland, ELH-11-3761, 2012 WL 987309, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2012))). But see Walker v.

Maryland, MJG-16-3136, 2017 WL 3730349, at *9 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2017) (summarily dismissing plaintiff’s

negligence claims and “any other common law claims based on negligent conduct” as barred by the MTCA).

trial detainee, and—Crowder argued—prisoners must pursue excessive force claims under

Articles 16 and 25. (Crowder Mot. to Dismiss 33-34, ECF No. 154-1.) Younger has

consistently maintained that he was a pre-trial detainee, argued that he may bring claims under

Article 24, and urged the application of a more lenient, “objective” standard to his federal

constitutional claims based on his incarceration status.

In a prior Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 188), this Court rejected Defendants’ calls

to classify Younger a prisoner rather than a pre-trial detainee because “[a]ll parties to the State

Court proceedings acknowledged” that Younger was a pre-trial detainee. (Mem. Op. 26-27,

ECF No. 188.) Nevertheless, this Court noted that it would reconsider the issue should the

evidence reveal that Younger was not a pre-trial detainee. (Id. at 27 n.11.) Now, at Summary

Judgment, Crowder offers the Declaration of Judith Hemler, Deputy Director of the DPSCS

Commitment Office, to argue that Younger was a convicted prisoner at the time of the attack.

(Hemler Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 185-7.) Younger protests that Hemler was not disclosed as a

witness until five weeks past the discovery deadline and less than sixty days before trial.

(Younger Resp. 9, ECF No. 195.) Younger maintains that the issue should no longer be in

dispute because Crowder agreed during the State trial that Younger was only “briefly” at

MRDCC “as a part of a pretrial process.” (Crowder Test., Trial Tr., June 10, 2019, 266:1-4,

ECF No. 195-4.) Moreover, counsel from the Office of the Attorney General—which is now

representing Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary—formerly represented in prior litigation that

Younger was a pre-trial detainee. (State’s Motion in Limine, State Case, Paper No. 60/0, ECF

No. 166-1; Join Statement of Facts, State Case, Paper No. 72/0, ECF No. 166-3.)

It can no longer be disputed that Younger was a pre-trial detainee. It is highly irregular

for Crowder and his counsel to contradict their representations in the Sate case by asserting

otherwise. The testimony of Judith Hemler was disclosed well after discovery had concluded

and will be excluded from this Court’s consideration and from trial. No other evidence

suggests that Younger was a prisoner rather than a pre-trial detainee. Accordingly, Younger

shall be deemed a pre-trial detainee for purposes of this case.

VI. Younger’s Federal Constitutional Claims.

In Count One of the Amended Complaint, Younger brings claims under the auspices

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Younger alleges that Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary

violated the following rights protected by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution: “(a) the right to be free from the use of excessive and unreasonable

force and seizure; (b) the right to be free from a deprivation of life and liberty without due

process of law; (c) the right to be free from known risks of serious physical harm; (d) the right

to be free from deliberate indifference for a serious medical need; and (e) the right to be free

from objectively unreasonable conduct that causes, or has the potential to cause, constitutional

harm.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 113, ECF No. 140.)

Younger pursues these claims against Crowder, Dupree, and Singletary under a theory

of supervisory liability. To establish supervisory liability under § 1983, Younger must show:

(1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that h[is]

subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable

risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff;

(2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to

show ‘deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive

practices,’; and

(3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’ between the supervisor’s inaction

and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.

Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791,

799 (4th Cir. 1994). To show a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury,

Younger must produce evidence that inmate assaults were “widespread, or at least used on

several different occasions and that the conduct engaged in by the subordinates poses an

unreasonable risk of harm of constitutional injury.” Id. To satisfy the second element,

Younger may prevail “by demonstrating a supervisor’s continued inaction in the face of

documented widespread abuses.” Id. To meet the third element, Younger must present

“direct” proof of causation “where the policy commands the injury of which plaintiff

complains . . . or may be supplied by the tort principle that holds a person liable for the natural

consequences of his actions.” Id. Ultimately, the issue of supervisory liability “is ordinarily

one of fact, not law.” Shaw, 13 F.3d at 799.

Crowder seeks summary judgment on all of Younger’s § 1983 claims, arguing that there

is “no admissible evidence” that Crowder knew of “widespread and pervasive premeditated

and retaliatory attacks by MRDCC staff on inmates” or was “deliberately indifferent to

Younger’s medical needs or to false charges asserted against him.”5 (Crowder Mot. 17-21,

ECF No. 185-1.)

5 Crowder also argues that there is no evidence that he was aware that Ramsey, Green, and Hanna

would attack Younger on September 30, 2013. As this Court has previously held in this case (Mem. Op. 26,

ECF No. 188), Younger need not demonstrate that Crowder was aware of a potential attack against Younger,

A. Younger must show “subjective deliberate indifference.”

As a preliminary matter, Younger argues that he need not show “subjective deliberate

indifference” to sustain a claim of supervisory liability against Crowder because he was a pre-

trial detainee, not a prisoner. Younger is correct that pre-trial detainees need not show that

their assailants had a particular subjective state of mind when using excessive force. Kingsley v.

Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472-73 (2015). Supervisory liability, however, always requires a

showing of deliberate indifference on the part of the supervisor. See, e.g., Thompson v. Friday,

JKB-18-2186, 2019 WL 6528975, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2019) (applying traditional supervisory

liability framework to claim against supervisor for subordinates’ use of excessive force against

pre-trial detainee); Ozah v. Fretwell, CCB-18-1063, 2019 WL 4060387, at *8-9 (D. Md. Aug. 28,

2019) (applying “deliberate indifference” state of mind requirement in pre-trial detainee case

and collecting cases for support).

B. Crowder’s knowledge of widespread and pervasive assaults against

inmates.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to raise a genuine dispute as to whether

Crowder knew of widespread inmate abuses. Despite explicit warnings about Ramsey and

Green’s behavior from Hinton, Fisher, and Peré, there is no evidence that Crowder took any

significant measures to prevent attacks on inmates. Although Assistant Warden Fisher, Chief

of Security Presbury, and Captain Joyner all claimed to have been unaware of prior attacks

against inmates conducted in retaliation for assaults against correctional officers, and

expressed surprise that Ramsey, Green, and Hanna retaliated against Younger, Crowder read

but rather must show that Crowder was aware of a substantial risk of harm to those like Younger (i.e., prisoners

at MRDCC). See Shaw, 13 F.3d at 799.

the numerous use of force reports bearing Ramsey and Green’s name, heard warnings about

Green from Hinton years before the assault, and listened to Peré’s complaints about

“unnecessary” uses of force. Hanna, moreover, has testified that he frequently participated in

attacks against inmates and that misconduct “goes from the top down.” At the summary

judgment stage, this Court may not resolve the factual disputes generated by the testimony of

Fisher, Hanna, Hinton, Joyner, Peré, and Presbury. It is for the jury to determine whether

Crowder had actual or constructive knowledge of the threat facing MRDCC inmates and

exhibited deliberate indifference to that threat.

C. Deliberate indifference to Younger’s medical needs.

To prevail on his “medical needs” claim, Younger must demonstrate: “(1) the

supervisory defendants failed promptly to provide [him] with needed medical care, (2) that the

supervisory defendants deliberately interfered with the prison doctors’ performance, or (3)

that the supervisory defendants tacitly authorized or were indifferent to the prison physicians’

constitutional violations.” Barnes v. Wilson, 110 F. Supp. 624, 631-32 (D. Md. 2015) (quoting

Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 854 (4th Cir. 1990)).

Younger has not adduced sufficient evidence to generate genuine disputes of material

fact on this issue. Although there is evidence that Crowder’s response to Younger’s assault

was deficient in many respects (see IIU 13-35-01359, ECF No. 195-3), it is undisputed that

Younger was transported to the medical unit immediately after he sustained his injuries, albeit

by his assailants. (Younger Dep. 94:6-11.) There is no evidence that Crowder deliberately

interfered with Younger’s medical procedures. Finally, Younger does not present evidence

that Crowder was aware of a widespread, well documented lack of medical attention to inmates

as supervisory liability ordinarily requires. Younger has failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact with respect to this claim. Accordingly, Summary Judgment is granted in favor

of Crowder on Younger’s claim that Crowder is liable for exhibiting deliberate indifference to

Younger’s medical needs.

D. Deliberate Indifference to false charges against Younger.

Younger’s claim that Crowder exhibited deliberate indifference to false charges

brought against him is also unavailing because Younger has failed to show that the charges

produced a constitutional deprivation. “An inmate has no constitutional right to be free from

being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct.” Cooper v. Shearin, JFM-10-3108, 2011 WL

6296799, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2011). So long as an inmate is “granted a hearing, and had

the opportunity to rebut the unfounded or false charges,” the mere filing of a false charge

against an inmate does not work a constitutional harm. Id. (quoting Freeman v. Rideout, 808

F.2d 949, 952-53 (2d Cir. 1986). There is no dispute that Younger was granted a hearing on

the administrative charges brought against him. Younger provides no evidence to support his

claim that he “could not call witnesses, present evidence, or rely on investigative documents”

to present a defense at his administrative hearing. (Younger Resp. 11, ECF No. 195.)

Moreover, there is no evidence that Crowder could have prevented Younger from facing these

charges. Younger was not found guilty of these charges until October 21, 2013, two weeks

after Crowder was removed from the Warden position. (Hearing Tr., Oct. 21, 2013, 25:9-14,

ECF No. 207-3.) Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of Crowder on

Younger’s claim that Crowder exhibited deliberate indifference to the filing of false charges

against Younger.

In summary, Younger has raised a genuine dispute concerning Crowder’s deliberate

indifference to assaults against inmates, and may proceed to trial on that theory. Younger may

not, however, proceed to trial on his theory that Crowder exhibited deliberate indifference to

his medical needs or to false charges pursued against him.

VII. Qualified Immunity.

Crowder contends that he is shielded from liability as to Younger’s § 1983 claims under

the doctrine of qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity shields government officials from

liability in a § 1983 suit as long as their conduct has not violated ‘clearly established statutory

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Humbert v. Mayor

& City Council of Baltimore City, 866 F.3d 546, 555 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity,

the court must examine (1) whether the facts illustrate that the officer violated the plaintiff’s

constitutional right . . . , and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

alleged event such that ‘a reasonable officer would have understood that his conduct violated

the asserted right.’ ” Id. (quoting Miller v. Prince George’s County, 475 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.

2007)). “The answer to both questions must be in the affirmative to defeat the officer’s

entitlement to immunity.” Id.

Seizing on a footnote from a Supreme Court opinion, Crowder argues that the law was

not sufficiently clear so as to put him on notice that his actions—or inactions—were

unconstitutional. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 n.3, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) (declining

to resolve “at what point a risk of inmate assault becomes sufficiently substantial for Eighth

Amendment purposes”). With this citation, Crowder appears to be arguing that officials can

never be held liable under a supervisory liability theory because the Supreme Court has declined

to precisely quantify when a risk of constitutional injury becomes sufficient to trigger liability.

Fourth Circuit precedent sufficiently notified Crowder that failing to take action to

protect inmates from abuses at the hands of correctional officers could lead to supervisory

liability under § 1983. The Fourth Circuit has recently affirmed that prisoners “have an Eighth

Amendment right to be protected from malicious attacks, not just by other inmates, but also

from the very officials tasked with ensuring their security” and that this right was clearly

established as of April 2010. Thompson v. Virginia, 878 F.3d 89, 109 (4th Cir. 2017).

Accordingly, qualified immunity cannot shield Crowder from Younger’s claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Crowder’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 185) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Summary Judgment

is ENTERED in Crowder’s favor on Younger’s claim that Crowder exhibited deliberate

indifference to Younger’s medical needs and the false charges entered against him, but is

DENIED as to all other claims asserted against him. Defendant Dupree’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 186) and the Motion for Summary Judgment for all Claims in

Amended Complaint against Defendant Wallace Singletary (ECF No. 187) are DENIED in

toto.

A separate Order follows.

Dated: December 19, 2019

___/s/__________________

Richard D. Bennett

United States District Judge