# Neal-Williams v. Daramy

> District Court, D. Maryland · October 16, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10650164

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Maryland
- **Decided:** October 16, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10650164

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RODJAUN NEAL-WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.: SAG-23-2166

OFFICER DARAMY, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Rodjaun Neal-Williams, who is currently incarcerated at Patuxent Institution,
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Officer Beige
Daramy, Officer Richard E. Ndoh, Sergeant Moyosore Ojo, Officer Richard Austin, and Officer
Junior Powell. ECF No. 1. On July 16, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants’
motion to dismiss which had been construed as a motion for summary judgment. See ECF Nos.
18, 19. On August 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss Complaint. ECF
No. 20. Plaintiff was notified of his right to file a response in opposition to the Motion. ECF
No. 21. To date, Plaintiff has not responded. This matter is now ripe and ready for review. For
the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion will be granted.
I. Complaint Allegations
In the Memorandum issued July 16, 2024 (ECF No. 18), the Court outlined Plaintiff’s
allegations as follows:
Plaintiff alleges that on April 6, 2023, while incarcerated at Montgomery County
Correctional Facility (“MCCF”), his cell door was opened for lunch distribution.
ECF No. 1 at 4. He states that he exited his cell to get his food and upon his return
he could not enter because his cellmate was in an argument with another inmate.
Id. Officer Austin called for assistance, stating there was a physical fight, which
Plaintiff contends was false. Id. Plaintiff and his cellmate locked in but officers
ordered Plaintiff to pack his belongings and cuff up so they could escort him to
segregation. Id. at 4-5. Upon arrival, Plaintiff immediately informed Officers
Daramy, Powell, and Ndoh that he had not been able to eat lunch because of the
incident and they told Plaintiff he would be brought a lunch tray. Id. at 5. Hours
passed and none of the officers brought Plaintiff lunch. Id. Plaintiff informed Sgt.
Ojo that he had not been provided lunch; he stated that he would look into the issue.
Id. at 5, 6. Plaintiff continued to request lunch when Officers Daramy, Powell, and
Ndoh conducted rounds every 15 to 30 minutes; the Officers repeatedly said it was
coming or that they needed to call for it. Id. at 6. Sgt. Ojo and Officer Ndoh and
Powell left at the end of their shift around 3:00 p.m. without addressing the
problem. Id. Officer Daramy was working another shift but still failed to get
Plaintiff lunch. See id.

When the new shift arrived, Plaintiff informed Sgt. Parker about the issue as well
but she replied that “it was last shift’s problem not hers.” ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff
brought the issue to Officer Daramy again who asserted that Plaintiff was lying and
had eaten lunch in his cell before being transferred to segregation. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff states that this incident caused him distress and he was lightheaded from
not eating. Id. at 7. Plaintiff requested to see a mental health professional but Sgt.
Parker and Officer Daramy refused because they were conducting a window and
wall check. Id. He also requested medical assistance because he was so hungry and
dizzy. Id. During medication distribution, Plaintiff reported the issue to Nurse
Gladys. Id. Feeling that nothing was being done, Plaintiff decided to attempt suicide
in front of the nurse and was sent to Holy Cross Hospital. Id. at 7-8.

When Plaintiff gained consciousness at the hospital, he states that his body was
paralyzed and he had tubes in his throat and penis. ECF No. 1 at 8. Later, he was
discharged and returned to the jail and housed in the medical unit where he endured
severe pain. Id. Plaintiff states that it took several weeks to heal and he suffers from
flashbacks, PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
and an order requiring the dismissal of Officers Daramy, Powell, and Ndoh from
their positions at MCCF. Id. at 5.

II. Standard of Review
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). ECF No. 20. To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the factual allegations of a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). The court may “consider documents attached to the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c),
as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and
authentic[.]” Sec’y of State For Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). “To satisfy this standard, [Plaintiff] need not ‘forecast’ evidence
sufficient to prove the elements of the claim. However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts
to establish those elements.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation

omitted).
The Court is mindful that Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. A federal court must
liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants to allow them to fully develop potentially
meritorious cases. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But liberal construction does
not mean a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a claim.
See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. Analysis
Defendants seeks dismissal of the Complaint asserting that Plaintiff’s alleged denial of a
meal is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim or alternatively are entitled to qualified

immunity. ECF No. 20.
As a preliminary matter, the Complaint will be dismissed against Officer Austin. Liability
under § 1983 only attaches by personal participation in a constitutional violation. Trulock v. Freeh,
275 F.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001). Here, at most, Plaintiff has alleged that Officer Austin
mischaracterized the altercation between his cellmate and another inmate while calling for
assistance. He otherwise does not allege any wrongdoing by Officer Austin, much less a
constitutional violation. Accordingly, Officer Austin must be dismissed.
As to the remaining Defendants, the Court must assess whether Plaintiff has sufficiently
stated Eighth Amendment claims against them. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate either the objective or subjective elements of such a claim. ECF No. 20 at 5.
Generally, conditions which “deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities” may amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
347 (1981). However, conditions which are merely restrictive or even harsh, “are part of the
penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Id.

In order to establish the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, a
prisoner must prove two elements - that ‘the deprivation of [a] basic
human need was objectively sufficiently serious,’ and that ‘subjectively
the officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.’

Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). “These
requirements spring from the text of the amendment itself; absent intentionality, a condition
imposed on an inmate cannot properly be called ‘punishment,’ and absent severity, such
punishment cannot be called ‘cruel and unusual.”’ Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2008)
(citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298–300 (1991)).
“Only extreme deprivations are adequate to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth
Amendment claim regarding conditions of confinement.” De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630,
634 (4th Cir. 2003). Demonstration of an extreme deprivation proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment requires an allegation of “a serious or significant physical or emotional injury
resulting from the challenged conditions, Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1381 (4th Cir. 1993),
or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the prisoner’s exposure to
the challenged conditions.” De’Lonta, 330 F.3d at 634 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25,
33–35 (1993)); see also Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003).
To establish a sufficiently culpable state of mind, there must be evidence that a known
excessive risk of harm to the inmate’s health or safety was disregarded. See Wilson, 501 U.S. at
298–99. In other words, “the test is whether the guards know the plaintiff inmate faces a serious
danger to his safety and they could avert the danger easily yet they fail to do so.” Brown v. N.
Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 612 F.3d 720, 723 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Case v. Ahitow, 301 F.3d 605,
607 (7th Cir. 2002)). Conduct is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment unless it transgresses
bright lines of clearly established pre-existing law. See Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295, 298
(4th Cir. 1992).

Even assuming that the Defendants had acted with malicious intent, Plaintiff has not
alleged a sufficient deprivation to demonstrate the objective element of his claims. In Farmer v.
Brennan, 511, U.S. 825, 832 (1994), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment imposed
a duty on prison officials to provide inmates with “adequate food.” Here, Plaintiff complains of a
single, isolated incident in which he was not provided one of three daily meals when he was moved
to segregation. The Fourth Circuit has long held, however, that even the consistent provision of
two meals a day did not present a serious or significant physical or mental injury. White v.
Gregory, 1 F.3d 267, 269 (4th Cir. 1993) (allegation that inmate received only two meals a day on
weekends and holidays but three meals a day on weekdays was insufficient to state an Eighth

Amendment claim absent suggestion of deleterious physical or mental effects). As such,
Defendants’ failure to provide Plaintiff with lunch in one instance, whether intentional or not, does
not indicate a deprivation of basic nutritional needs. Plaintiff does not complain of a serious injury;
he states that he experienced hunger and lightheadedness. While the Court is deeply troubled by
Plaintiff’s self-harm, it does not follow that it was caused by Defendants’ failure to provide one
meal but rather Plaintiff’s feeling that nothing was being done in response to his complaints.
Because Plaintiff fails to allege a sufficiently serious injury, the Complaint must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss will be granted and
the Complaint dismissed.
A separate Order follows.

October 16, 2024 ________/s/_____________________
Date Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10650164. Public record. Not legal advice.