Contreras v. Graham, Jr., et al., No. 8:2016cv01415 - Document 7 (D. Md. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/12/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 9/12/16)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Contreras v. Graham, Jr., et al. Doc. 7 FILED U.S. DIS TRICT COURT DIS1RICT OF t'j,\RYLANO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT dj~~f 12 A t]: II q FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANI~LEHK'S OFFlCeSouthern Diyision AT G?E[H~~~~ BY _ * .JOSE DAVID CONTRERAS, * Plaintiff, * v. Case No.: G.JH-16-I-tlS * RICHARD GRAHAM, .JR., et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM I. * * * * * * OPINION Background On May I I. 2016. thc Court rcceivcd for filing a scll~rcprcscntcd "Emcrgeney Pctitionl()r Injunctive Relief' filcd by Jose David Contreras. a statc inmate currently housed at thc Wcstcrn Correctional Institution ("WCn. stabbed by sevcralunidcntificd Contreras alleged that on i'vlarch 17.2016. hc was attackcd and prisoners at WCI. mcdically trcatcd for his injurics. and placed on administrative segregation pcnding an investigation into the matter. ECF I o. I. The lollowing month. he was in!onned by case managemcnt pcrsonncl that because no "culprit" had been caught. he was to be transferred out of WCI. Contreras claimed. however. that on May 4. 2016. WCI Corporal Winebrenner informcd him that hc was going to bc scnt back to gcneral population pending available bed space and a transfer out of WCI was not nccessary becausc Contrcras was not ablc to identify his attackers. Contrcras argued that he "will I~leeimmincnt injury of another attack ... il'he Dockets.Justia.com is returned to the general population..... He sought to enjoin his return to general population and requested a transfer out ofWCI to a "suitable" lilcility. Id. The Petition was construed as a 42 U.S.c. * .1983 civil rights action and on May 16.2016. counsel for the Maryland Department of Public Salety and Correctional Services ("'I)I'SCS") was ordered to file a show cause response to the Complaint to provide veri lied information regarding Contreras' safety and housing situation. ECr NO.2. Contreras \qlS directcd to rcmit the S400.00 filing fee or to move to proceed in/iJI"IIIlI pauperis. Id. To date. Contreras has liled neither the civil tiling lee nor an in.fimlla pauperis application. On June 13,2016. counsel tiled a Show Cause Response. ECr NO.4. The response relicd on exhibits filed outside the scope of the pleading and substantively responded to Contreras' allegations regarding his salety and DPSCS housing. It was treated as a motion for summary judgment and underthe dictates ofRosehoro \'. Garrisoll. 528 F.2d. 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Contreras was placcd on notice of the re-characterization of counsel's tiling and of his entitlement to lile an opposition response with materials in support thcrcof. ECF Nos. 5 & 6. Ilc was grantcd an additional pcriod of time to file a responsivc pleading. As of thc within signature date. Contreras has not tiled an opposition. II. DEFENDANTS' JUDGMENT) A. SHOW CAUSE RESPONSE (MOTION FOR SUi\li\1ARY STANDARD OF REVIEW A motion for summary judgment will be granted only iftherc cxists no gcnuinc issuc as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter orlaw. See Fcd. R. Civ. 1'. 56(a); Andersoll \'. Uherty LoMy. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242. 250 (1986): Celotex Corp. \'. Catrel/.477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Thc moving party bcars thc burdcn of showing that thcrc is no gcnuinc issuc as to any matcrial fact. Additionally. no gcnuinc issuc of matcrial fact will bc found if thc nonmoving party fails to makc a surticicnt showing on an csscntial e1cmcnt of his or hcr casc as to which he or she would havc thc burdcn of proof. See Ce/olex. 477 U.S. at 312-323. Thcrc!()rc. on those issues on which thc nonmoving party has thc burdcn ofprooL it is his or hcr rcsponsibility to confront the summary judgmcnt motion with an artidavit or other similar c\'idcncc showing that there is a genuine issuc for trial. To allegc a constitutionalfailurc-to-protcct claim. Contrcras must dcmonstrate thc \H1YS in which Defendants knew of and disrcgarded an cxcessi\'c risk to his health and safety. Dclendants must both be awarc ofthc facts from which thc inferencc could bc drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists. and must also draw the infercnce. See Farll/er \', Brennan. 511 U.S. 825. 837 (1994). Thus. Defendants must have knowledgc both ofthc risk of harm and also thatthcireonduct is inappropriate in light of that risk. See Rich \'. Bruce. 129 F.3d 336. 339-40 (4th Cir. 1997). Moreover. Contreras must allel!c ways in \vhich Defendants' actions (or inactions) rcsultcd in ~ . , "serious or significant physical or cmotional injury." De '/.onla \'. Angelone. 330 FJd 630. 634 (4th Cir. 2003). Under the law in this Circuit. thc party secking a prcliminary injunction must demonstratc: (I) by a "clear showing" that hc is likcly to succcss onlhc mcrits at trial: (2), hc is likely to suffer irrcparable harm in the absencc of preliminary relicf: (3) the balancc of cquitics tips in his favor: and (4) an injunction is in thc public intcrcst. See WillieI' ,', Nalural Resources Defense Council. /I1C 555 U.S. 7. 20-24 (2008); Real7i'/IIh .. Ahoul Ohall/a. /I1C, I'. Federal Electioll COII/'Il, 575 F. 3d 342. 346-47 (4th Cir. 20(9). cerl. grallled.judgll/elll 3 l'aCliled. 559 U.S. 1089 (20 I0). adhered (0 ;11 part sub 110111. the Real 7i'lIIh Aholll Ohallla. Illc. \'. F f. c.. 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). B. ANALYSIS According to Defendants. Contreras's allegations unknown assailants are contrived and "undennined" evaluated that he was attacked and stabbed by by the medical records. Contreras was medically by Nurse Cortez two days aner the alleged attack on March 19. 20 \6. She reported that Contreras had informed her that his cell mate had inl1icted the' wounds the day before. She fllllnd the wounds to the lip. chest. right arm and right shoulder to be a "superficial injury to the skin" and that they appeared older than 24 hours. ECl' NO.4-I at 14-1 X. On April 17.2016. Contreras was seen by Dr. Stallworth complaints for a follow-up provider visit. No infection was noted and Contreras of pain or other symptoms related to his injury. Id. at 20-21. Stalh\orth puncture wounds to Contreras' had no noted that the len upper lip. len ann. len scapula and interior chest wall were \\'c11 healed.ld. WCI Lieutenant McKenzie affirms that on March 19. 2016. he was informed by Contreras that he had been assaulted. McKenzie No staff had witnessed the incident and Contreras any specifics as to when or \\'here it occurred. could not give what kind of weapon was used. \\'ho assaulted him. or why he would be assaulted. ECl' No. 4-2 at McKenzie Dec\. McKenzie maintains that Contreras was placed on administrative segregation pending an investigation into his claims. Although Contreras informed medical stafTthat he was attacked by his cell mate. he told McKenzie during a re-interview that he was assaulted by multiple assailants. but could not identifY them. or discuss how many there were. when it occurred. completed his investigation on May 3.20 J or "hat type of weapon was used. McKenzie 6. Due to ioconsistent and vague inilJnllalion. he could not 4 verifY Contreras' segregation. claims. He recommended that Contreras be removed from administrative Contreras was removed from administrative segregation on May 4. 2016. Itl. Contreras has tailed to show that he will succeed on the merits of his case and that he is subject to immediate and irreparable harm if emergency relief is not granted. There is no demonstration of deliberate indifference on the part of WCI staff. Contreras was placed on administrative segregation for approximately 45 days pending an investigation into his claims. The unrefuted record shows that his allegations were inconsistent and could not be substantiated. Injunctive relief is not warranted and the case shall be dismissed. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons. the Court will. by separate Order GRANT Defendants' court- construed Motion for Summary Judgment and SHALL DISMISS the Complaint. Date: September JR:. 20 I6. AILGEORGE .I. HAZEL United States District Judge 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
