Gregory T. Holden v. David Donaldson, Sr., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants summary judgment to correctional officers and a nurse in Gregory T. Holden’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Holden alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by denying him a decontamination shower after being sprayed with a chemical agent and violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to follow correctional policy. The court also denies Holden’s motion to amend and denies as moot a motion to stay related to the bankruptcy of the medical contractor.

Holdings

1. The defendants were entitled to summary judgment because, even assuming Holden was denied a decontamination shower, the undisputed evidence showed that he had access to running water and cleaning supplies with which to wash off the chemical agent. He therefore did not establish an objectively serious deprivation or deliberate indifference sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment violation.
2. The defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Holden's Fourteenth Amendment claim because Holden did not establish deprivation of a protected liberty interest. The evidence did not show a policy requiring a decontamination shower, did not show that he was denied the medical-assessment policy, and showed that he had means to cleanse himself even if he was denied a shower while in administrative segregation.
3. Leave to amend was denied because Holden filed the motion months after dispositive-motion briefing, failed to identify the proposed new defendants or explain their alleged violations, and failed to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by the local rule.
4. Coleman's motion to stay was denied as moot because the bankruptcy court had issued an order allowing Holden's action to proceed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide Holden a decontamination shower or other means of cleansing after he was sprayed with a chemical agent.
2. Whether the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to follow alleged prison policies concerning decontamination and shower access.
3. Whether Holden should be granted leave to amend his complaint after the close of briefing without identifying proposed defendants or attaching a proposed amended pleading.
4. Whether Karen Coleman's motion to stay should be granted in light of the bankruptcy proceedings involving her former employer.

Disposition

other