Larnell E. Hendrick v. Warden Roberts Dean, Jr., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland considers a self-represented inmate’s claims that correctional officials retaliated against him for filing grievances and violated his constitutional and state-law rights. The court dismisses claims against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and claims against individual defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment grounds. It allows the retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Maryland Declaration of Rights claims to proceed against the remaining defendants.

Holdings

1. The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the individual defendants sued in their official capacities are immune from Hendrick's federal claims and those claims must be dismissed.
2. Hendrick plausibly pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim against all defendants except DPSCS.
3. A plaintiff need not prove that he personally stopped exercising First Amendment rights; it is sufficient at the pleading stage to allege conduct that would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness and that is more than a de minimis inconvenience.
4. Hendrick sufficiently pleaded injuries to allow his damages claim to proceed.
5. The intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and Maryland Declaration of Rights claims were not dismissed because defendants offered no more than conclusory arguments for dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims against the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and individual defendants in their official capacities are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
2. Whether Hendrick plausibly pleaded First Amendment retaliation based on grievances and other protected activity.
3. Whether the alleged conduct, considered collectively, constituted more than a de minimis inconvenience and would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising First Amendment rights.
4. Whether Hendrick sufficiently pleaded injuries to support a damages claim.
5. Whether Hendrick's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and Maryland Declaration of Rights claims should be dismissed at the pleading stage.

Disposition

other