Parks v. W.C.D.C. et al, No. 8:2019cv01987 - Document 13 (D. Md. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/23/2019. (c/m 12/23/19 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Parks v. W.C.D.C. et al Doc. 13 ù,. IN THE IJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E DISTRICT OF M ARYLAND N ICH OLA S PAR KS, * Plaintiff, * t'ig .. - t7 /$:h L ),fc oi ; sjjjj.: sccoy z #'8ngu j. /gps'co! ie p, g:fs ctt/?/l, AFca xr ;lcggjcg kyyyqvj v * ' W .C.D.C.,etal., CivilActionNo.GJH-19-t987 * Defendants. *** M EM O R AN D UM . 0nJuly 3,2019,NicholasParksfiledtheabove-captioned complaintprosek gainst13 I separatedefendantsalleging,interalia,m edicalm alpracticeandviolationsofhisrightàunderthe I Eighth andFourteenthAmendm entswhilehewasincarcerated attheW icom ico CountyDetention i CenterCCW CDC'')in Salisbury,Maryland.ECFNo.1. OnAugujt8,2019,ParksfiledaMotion forPreliminary Injunction and/orProtective Orderrequesting medicalattention,msIwellas a Motion forAppointmentofCounsel. ECFNo.4. On October29,2019,counselekteredhis i appearance for defendant W CDC, and subsequently entered his appearance on behalf of ' I defendantsPreston Foreman and M ichaelJnmison (collectively,theGf orrectionalDefeIndants.''). ECF Nos.9,11.On December16,2019,theCorrectionalDefendantsfiled aM otion forExtension I ofTimeto respondtoParks'tilings.ECF No.12.Accordingto counsel,noneofthe 10yemaining I defendantsappearsto be aW icomico County employee,hasbeen served,orhasotherwiseagreed towaiveserviceofprocess.1d at!! 1,4. Uponreview ofthecomplaintandthe35-pageattachmentthereto,itistmclearwlkatParks' I claimsareagainsteachdefendant.SeeECFNo.1-1.UnderFederalRuleofCivilProce/ure8(a), I apleadingwhich setsforthaclaim forreliefshallcontain:(1)ashortandplain statementofthe groundsforthecourt'sjmisdiction;(2)ashortandplain statementoftheclaim showingthatthe Dockets.Justia.com pleaderisentitledtorelief;and(3)ademandforthereliefsought.Thettshortandplaiistatement I ofthe claim '''m ustsim ply Rgive the defendantfairnotice ofwhattheplaintiffsclaintI isand the I grotmdsupon which itrests.''Swierkiewiczv.SoremaN A.,534U.S.506,512 (2007)(quoting I Conley v.Gibson,355 U.S.41,47 (1957:. UnderRule 8(d)(1),each allegationin a, 'complaint I shouldbet:simple,concise,and direct.''Furthermore,apleading thatofferslabelsand conclusions oraformulaicrecitationoftheelementsofacauseofactiondoesnotsatisfythesebasikpleading requirements.Ashcrop v.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678 (2009)(quotingBellAtl.Corp.v.I'Twombly, 550U.S.544,555(2007:. Although a com plaintneed notcontain detailed allegations,the facts allegedI mustbe I enough to raise a rightto reliefabove the speculative leveland require tçmore than labelsand conclusions,''ascourtst&are notbotmd to acceptastrue a legalconclusion couched ajI a factual allegation.'' Twombly,550 U.S.at555. A I com plaintm ustcontain Xenough factsto state a claim I toreliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''f#.at570.Onceaclaim hasbeensutedadequatejy,itmay I be supported by showing any setoffactsconsistentwith the allegationsin thecom plaiht. f#.at ! 561. Prosepleadingsareliberallyconstnledandheldtoalessstringentstandardthantleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v.Pardus,551U.S.89,94 (2007)(citingEstellev.Gambl e,429 i U.S.97,106(1976:;accordBrown v.N C.Dep 'tofcorr.,612 F.3d 720,722(4th Ci' p 2010). I Pro se com plaints ard entitled to specialcare to determ ine whetherany possible setoffad sw ould entitletheplaintifftorelief.Hughesv.Rowe,449U.S.5,9-10(1980).Nonetheless,1t(w4 ,hilepro secomplaintsmay trepresentthework ofanuntutoredhandrequiring specialjudicialsolicitude,' a districtcourtis not required to recognize Eobscure or extravagant claims defying the m ost I concerted effortsto unravelthem.''' Wellerv.Dep'tofsoc.Servs.forBalt,901F.2d 3I87,391 2 (4thCir.1990)(quotingBeaudettv.Cit yofHampton,775F.2d1274,1277(4thCir.1y85)). Inhiscomplaint,Parkssllmmarilyallegesthatdefendantsviolatedhisconstitutiànalrights. SeeECF No.1. Although Parksincluded a 35-page attachmentwith ltiscomplaint,iyisunclear from Parks'lengthy handwrittennotesand copiesofpreviousinstitutionalgrievanceibrmswhat hisexactclaim sare againsteach named defendant.In lightofhis self-represented stqm s,Parks I willbe provided an opportunity to addressthe noted detk iency through an amended complaint. I SeeGoodev.Cent.FW.fegalAidSoc: y,Inc.,807F.3d619,624 (4thCir.2015).Inthènmended complaint,Parksmustinclude:1)how each defendantisinvolved in thismatter,inqluding the defendant'saffiliationwith W CDC;2)whatfederallaw orconstitutionalprovisionheisalleging thateachdefendantviolated;3)thedatesofanyrelevantincidents;and4)thefactssupportinghis claims.Parksisforewarnedthatthefailuretofileanamendedcomplaintwithinthetimtspecified i hereinmayresultindismissalofthecomplaintwithoutprejudiceandwithoutfurthernptice. I ParksalsofiledaM otion forPreliminaryInjtmction and/orProtectiveOrder,which inits entirety states:tçform yhep-c,dentalplatesto befixed so I'm abletoeatand beoutofpin,mental health meds,correctiveglassesandmypain levelstobehandle(sic)in afairmnnner.''IECFNo. 4.A preliminaryinjunctionisanextraordinaryanddrasticremedy.SeeMunafv.Gereni553U.S. I 674,689-90(2008).Toobtainapreliminaryinjunction,amovantmustdemonstrate:1)thatheis likelytosucceedonthemerits;2)thatheislikelyto sufferirreparableharm intheabsenceof preliminary relief;3)thatthebalanceofequitiestipsinMsfavor;and 4)thataninjtmction isin ' I thepublicinterest.See Winterv.Nat.Res.Def Council,Inc.,555U.S.7(2008);TheRealTruth AboutObama,Inc.v.Fed.ElectionComm 'n,575F.3d342,346(4thCir.2009),vacatedonother I grounds,559 U.S.1089 (2010),reinstated in relevantparton remand,607 F.3d 355I(4th Cir. 2010)(percuriam).Ataminimllm,here,Parkscnnnotprovethatheislikelyto sufferirieparable I 3 harm ashe hasfailed to provide anything to supporthisrequests. Therefore,Parks'V otion for PreliminaryInjunctionand/orRestrainingOrdershallbedenied. W ithinhisM otionforPreliminarylnjunctionand/orProtectiveOrder,Parksaljoincluded I a M otion for Appointm entofCounsel. ECF No.4. A federaldistrictcourtjudge'ypowerto appointcounselunder28 U.S.C.j 1915(e)(1),1isa discretionary one, and m ay be çons I idered I where an indigentclaim antpresents exceptionalcircum stnnces. See Cook v.Boundh 518 F.2d I 779 (4thCir.1975);seealsoBranch v.Cole,686 F.2d264 (5th'Cir.1982).Thereisnoabsolute rightto appointm entofcotmsel;an indigentclaim antmustpresentçtexceptionalcircllfnstances.'' 1 See M iller v.Simmons,814 F.2d 962,966 (4th Cir.1987). 'I' he question ofwhiIther such I circumstancesexistinaparticularcasehingesonthecharacteristicsoftheclaim and$elitigant. I See Whisenantv.Yuam,739F.2d160,163(4thCir.1984).W hereacolorableclaim exil stsbutthe litiganthasno capacity to presentit,counselshould be appointed. 1d. Parksprovidesno reasonsto supporthisM otion forAppointmentofCotmsel. Rather,in thebodyofthemotion,hemerelyrequestsGtaprintoutof(his)accotmt''from severalcorrectional I facilities. ECF N o.4. Thus,there are no exceptional circllm stances that w ould w àrrant the I ' appointmentofan attorneytorepresentParksunderj1915(e)(1)atthistime,andhisVotion for AppointmentofCounselwillbedeniedwithoutprejudice. Lastly,theCorrectionalDefendantshavefiledaMotionforExtensionofTimesJeking an , additional30 days in which to respond to Parks'filings. ECF No.12. Thatm otiop shallbe granted. AsParksisyetto nmend hiscomplaint,the CorrectionalDefendants'respons: shallbe due w ithin 30 daysfrom the date Parks fileshisnm endm ent. 1Underj 1915(e)(l),aCourtoftheUnited Statesmay requestanattorneytorepresentaizyperson unable to aflbrd counsel. ' 4 A separateorderfollows. IV p Y # Date GEOR GE A H A ZEL United StatesDistrictJudge 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.
