Davis v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Serv.
| Decision Date | 20 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. JFM-10-2009 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
| Parties | VANDER DAVIS #323-484 Plaintiff v. SECRETARY OF THE DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, KATHLEEN GREEN , Warden, and RODERICK SOWERS, Warden. Defendants |
Pending are a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) filed by counsel on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Kathleen Green, Warden of Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI), and Roderick Sowers, Warden of Roxbury Correctional Institution (RCI), and plaintiff's opposition. ECF No. 24. After review of the papers, exhibits, and applicable law, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19)1 will be GRANTED IN PART as to claims raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Sowers and Warden Green and DENIED IN PART as to claims raised under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Vander Davis (Davis), an inmate currently housed at the Maryland Correctional Institution- Jessup (MCI-J), filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging: 1) he received inadequate medical treatment for his hearingimpairment while confined at RCI and ECI; 2 and 2) it took too long to transfer him to a suitable corrections facility for deaf inmates. Complaint, pp. 4-5. Davis contends that his hearing impairment was worsened by his housing assignment. See id. Further, he complains that his housing at ECI was unsuitable because he unable to hear the prison intercom system which caused him to miss meals, announcements, and other activities, including four parole hearings. ECF No. 1, plaintiff's Exhibit 2; ECF No. 24, Attachments.
Davis claims that he was not provided necessary accommodations for his disability for over a year and a half after arriving at ECI and approximately six years after first entering DOC custody.3 As relief, Davis requests damages for violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, for negligence, and for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Davis was housed primarily at RCI from November 7, 2004, until August 28, 2008, when he was transferred to ECI. Defendants' Exhibit 1, Declaration of Kathy Casper, \ 2. On May 28, 2009, Davis was assigned to a special needs tier at ECI.
On June 17, 2010, Davis was transferred to MCI-J, the facility designated by the Division of Correction (DOC) for hearing impaired and deaf inmates. MCI-J provides interpreters and assistive technology for hearing impaired inmates. Defendants' Exhibit 5, Declaration ofWarden Kathleen Green. On July 22, 2010, Davis filed the instant complaint.
A. ARPs and Request Slips
Davis asserts that he notified medical providers of his disability when he arrived at ECI. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, ARP No. 323-484, p. 3.
On January 22, 2009, Davis was examined by an audiologist, provided a hearing aid for his right ear, and informed that his "left ear was to[o] damaged for [a] hearing aid to help." ECF No. 1, Complaint, ¶ III; plaintiff's Exhibit, 1, Evaluation of Jenifer Cushing, audiologist. pp. 3-6. The audiologist recommended moving Davis to a correctional facility better suited to his special needs. Davis was transferred to a facility for deaf inmates over a year and a half later and six years after entering DOC custody.4 See Complaint p. 5; plaintiff's Exhibit 1, pp. 3, 5-6; ECF No. 24, plaintiff's Opposition. p. 2.
When transfer did not occur, Davis filed an Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) request for a suitable placement. plaintiff's Exhibits 2 and 4. The ARP was dismissed. Davis ultimately filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. On June 2, 2009, the grievance was denied by Paula Williams, Associate Director as follows:
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.
In a request slip dated February 6, 2009, Davis asked to be placed in housing suitable for deaf inmates. plaintiff's Exhibit, 2, p. 5. On February 10, 2009, Officer W. Bailey responded that if Davis was interested in a transfer to the unit for hearing impaired inmates at MCI-J, Bailey would obtain the necessary documentation from the medical department. See id. On February 12, 2009, Davis asked for a transfer to MCI-J, and on February 17, 2009, Officer Bailey informed him that a request had been sent to the medical department. See id. p. 6.
On February 20, 2009, Davis filed an ARP which was signed by A. Diggs, Correctional Officer, II, in which Davis wrote: plaintiff's Exhibit 2, p. 1 (emphasis in original).
On March 10, 2009, Davis inquired about the status of his request to move to MCI-J, adding that "things are not working out here." Id., p. 7. On March 16, 2009, Officer Bailey responded: "I am still waiting for the requested info from the medical department." On June 16, 2009, Nancy Bealer, R.N., wrote: Defendants' Exhibit 7.
In an ARP request date stamped April 7, 2009, Davis complained that the audiologist hadrecommended suitable housing for his hearing impairment. plaintiff's Exhibit 4, p. 2. Davis complained that when he first entered Division of Correction custody in 2004, he stated during his intake examination that he was hearing impaired, but it has taken 3 years and 7 months to receive any treatment, and he had completely lost hearing in his left ear because of the delay. See id.
Davis avers that on May 6, 2009, he was informed that his parole hearing had been postponed for a fourth time because ECI could not accommodate a hearing impaired inmate for a hearing by teleconference. ECF No. 24, Attachment to Opposition.
On May 28, 2009, Davis was assigned to the special needs tier at ECI. Davis asserts that he was placed on the special needs tier only after he was assaulted by his cell mate because Davis used the light to inform officers that he wanted to go to breakfast, could not hear the intercom calls for chow, and the doors did not open unless inmates stood by their doors so officers knew they wanted to go to breakfast. ECF No. 24. Opposition, p. 5.
On June 6, 2009, Davis submitted a request slip stating that he is hearing-impaired and cannot understand the ECI audio system and again requested a transfer to MCI-J. Davis asked whether the necessary documentation could be signed. At the bottom of his request is the following unsigned and undated response: "You have to be at the institution for 18 months before you can." plaintiff's Exhibit 2, p. 8. Defendants do not address this comment in their dispositive motion.
On October 20, 2009, Robert D. Webster, informed Captain Christina Tyler at ECI:
Inmate Davis was in the cell with inmate Ronald Wilkes # 331-151 on the special needs tier. Both inmates were interviewed and inmate Wilkes agreed to assist Davis with his hearing problem. Wilkes would make sure that Davis went to Chow and went on all passes for him. Inmate Wilkes would also help Davisif he did not understand what was being said to him. Inmate Davis was thankful and appreciated the help. Officer's [sic] on the tier handed him his passes in person for any activity he may have had. I was in the process of obtaining a loaner T.V. with caption capability for his used, however, he was transferred from ECI prior to receiving the T.V.
Defendants' Exhibit 8.
On February 7, 2010, Davis submitted ARP # ECI-07-96-10 signed by B. Miller, Correctional Officer I, in which Davis stated that he is hearing impaired and relies on his cell door to be open so that he can go to meals. ECF No. 24, Attachment to Opposition. Davis noted that on several occasions he has missed meals because his cell door was not open. See id. He requested transfer to a more suitable environment. See id.
"The 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." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
"The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,' but rather must 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.' " Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The court should "view the evidence in the light most favorable to .... the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in [his] favor without weighing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial