Mitchell v. Crites

Decision Date13 July 2021
Docket NumberCivil Action No. GLR-20-3091
PartiesWAYNE A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. LT. JEREMY CRITES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Lieutenant Jeremy Crites' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15).2 The Motion is ripe for disposition and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020, the administration at North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI") authorized a mass search of Housing Unit No. 1 in response to staff and inmate complaints about an increase in smoke on the tiers. (Crites Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 15-4; Bradley Decl. Attachs. at 3-5,3 ECF No. 15-5). The search included Cell No. 2 ofHousing Unit No. 1, which was then occupied by Mitchell and his cellmate. (Crites Decl. ¶ 6).

Mitchell claims that Crites "negligently" authorized the mass cell search with the intention of finding contraband. (Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1). Mitchell contends the search was needless and performed recklessly in light of the risks posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic and violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.). He claims that Crites violated his right to adequate medical care because he was not provided personal protective equipment ("PPE"), such as a mask and face shield, during the search. (Id. at 4).

Mitchell alleges that Crites had "actual constructive knowledge of the damages that a mass search could pose to inmates and staff" because the warden and supervisory staff were briefed about the severity of COVID-19 during mandatory roll call, and because prisons were "named hotspots for outbreaks." (Id. at 4-5). Mitchell asserts the search failed to comply with "mandates" issued by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on March 5, 2020, as well as directives issued by the Warden of NBCI and the Centers for Disease Control requiring prison facilities to modify search protocols, introduce social distancing, and provide personal protective gear to inmates and staff. (Id.). Mitchell requests monetary damages and injunctive relief "until [the] issue is resolved," transfer to an institution outside of Cumberland, Maryland, and for all social distancing mandates to be enforced by NBCI administration and custody staff. (Id. at 5).

In his Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Mitchell states that on March 18, 2020, correctional staff entered his small cell so that they werewithin arm's reach of him, removed his handcuffs, and instructed him to grab his buttocks, lift his genitals for inspection, and to use his hands to run along the gum line of his mouth while an officer inspected his mouth with a flashlight. (Pl.'s Mot. Dismiss Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Alt. Summ. J. Pl. ["Opp'n"] at 4, ECF No. 18).4 Neither the correctional officers nor Mitchell wore a facial covering. (Id.). Mitchell states that he was not provided an opportunity to wash his hands. (Id. at 7). After the inspection, Mitchell was placed in a chair alongside ten to twelve other inmates and correctional staff. (Id. at 4). He acknowledges that staff wore fabric or leather gloves during the search and the inspection, which included handling every item in his cell, including towels, food, clothing, and linen. (Id.). At the time of the search, NBCI was not conducting any testing for the COVID-19 virus. (Id. at 7).

Importantly, Mitchell does not allege in the Complaint that he contracted COVID-19 as a result of the search. Although he asserts in his Motion that he suffers ongoing severe migraines, muscle aches, and fatigue, he does not provide any details to suggest they are COVID-19 related or consequent to the search. (Id. at 8).5 Mitchell argues that because hewas not tested until months after the cell search was conducted, transmission of the virus would not have been discovered. (Id.). He asserts that the origin of the smoke on the tier "should have been easily narrowed down to a more specific location" to avoid conducting a mass search during a "state of emergency due to a deadly respiratory disease." (Id. at 5).

On March 5, 2020, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan issued a state of emergency proclamation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (State of Md. Coronavirus Executive Order Excerpts ["Md. Orders"] at 1-2, ECF No. 15-3). On March 12, 2020, Governor Hogan issued an order limiting large public gatherings to 250 people. (Id. at 3-5). On March 16, 2020, Governor Hogan revised the March 12, 2020 order to limit large public gatherings to fifty people. (Id. at 6-9). On March 31, 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services issued a directive to provide standards for using PPE, and afterwards all institutional staff were provided PPE. (Crites Decl. ¶ 9; Bradley Decl. Attachs. at 6-11). On April 15, 2020, Governor Hogan issued Executive Order No. 20-04-15-01, requiring for the first time that members of the public wear face coverings when riding public transportation and in retail or food service establishments. (Md. Orders at 14-17).

B. Procedural History

The Court received Mitchell's Complaint on October 23, 2020. (ECF No. 1). Although the Complaint does not expressly identify a cause of action, it appears toarticulate claims against Crites for negligence and for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for wrongly authorizing a cell search that could have exposed Mitchell to COVID-19. (Id. at 3). Mitchell seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at 3, 5).

On February 18, 2021, Crites filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15). The Court received Mitchell's Opposition, styled as a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18), on March 17, 2021. Crites did not file a Reply.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
1. Conversion

Crites styles his Motion as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56. "A motion styled in this manner implicates the Court's discretion under Rule 12(d)[.]" Pevia v. Hogan, 443 F.Supp.3d 612, 625 (D.Md. 2020) (citation omitted). Rule 12(d) provides that when "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The Court has "complete discretion to determine whether or not to accept the submission of any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and rely on it, thereby converting the motion, or to reject it or simply not consider it." Wells-Bey v. Kopp, No. ELH-12-2319, 2013 WL 1700927, at *5 (D.Md. Apr. 16, 2013) (quoting 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1366, at 159 (3d ed. 2004)).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has articulated two requirements for proper conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 motion: notice and "a reasonable opportunity for discovery." Greater Balt. Ctr. for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor of Balt., 721 F.3d 264, 281 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). When the movant expressly captions its motion "in the alternative" as one for summary judgment and submits matters outside the pleadings for the court's consideration, the parties are deemed to be on notice that conversion under Rule 12(d) may occur. See Moret v. Harvey, 381 F.Supp.2d 458, 464 (D.Md. 2005) (citing Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253, 260-61 (4th Cir. 1998)). The Court "does not have an obligation to notify parties of the obvious." Laughlin, 149 F.3d at 261.

Ordinarily, summary judgment is inappropriate when "the parties have not had an opportunity for reasonable discovery." E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Yet "the party opposing summary judgment 'cannot complain that summary judgment was granted without discovery unless that party had made an attempt to oppose the motion on the grounds that more time was needed for discovery.'" Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 961 (4th Cir. 1996)). To successfully raise the need for additional discovery, the non-movant must typically file an affidavit or declaration under Rule 56(d), explaining the "specified reasons" why "it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). A Rule 56(d) affidavit is inadequate if it simply demands "discovery for the sake of discovery." Hamilton v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 807 F.Supp.2d 331, 342 (D.Md.2011) (citation omitted). A Rule 56(d) request for discovery is properly denied when "the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment." Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 195 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Strag v. Bd. of Trs., Craven Cmty. Coll., 55 F.3d 943, 954 (4th Cir. 1995)).

The Fourth Circuit has warned that it "'place[s] great weight on the Rule 56[d] affidavit' and that 'a reference to Rule 56[d] and the need for additional discovery in a memorandum of law in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not an adequate substitute for a Rule 56[d] affidavit.'" Harrods, 302 F.3d at 244 (quoting Evans, 80 F.3d at 961). Failing to file a Rule 56(d) affidavit "is itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate." Id. (quoting Evans, 80 F.3d at 961). Despite these holdings, the Fourth Circuit has indicated that there are some limited circumstances in which summary judgment may be premature, notwithstanding the non-movants' failure to file a Rule 56(d) a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT