Richardson v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ADAM K. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: SAG-26-1625
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Eastern Correctional Institution (“ECI”), has requested
permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	Because Plaintiff
appears indigent, his requests to proceed without pre-payment of the filing fee are granted. Plaintiff
was previously directed to file an Amended Complaint addressing identified pleading deficiencies.
ECF No. 6. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8), filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which has been reviewed by the Court with respect to the 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A criteria.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants Warden Bailey, Correctional
Officers Louijeune, Curtis, Jude, and Pierre, and Hearing Officer Bradley Mister. ECF No. 8. He
alleges that on February 19, 2026, after leaving his work assignment late, he took a shower and
was in the process of preparing food and getting ice to take to his cell when Officer Louijeune
asked him where he was going. ECF No. 8 at 4-5. Plaintiff explained that he was a worker and
was out for his shower, but Louijeune disputed this and then went into “the bubble where the other
officers [were] and [blatantly] lie[d] saying [Plaintiff] threaten[ed] him.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff denies
Case 1:26-cv-01625-SAG Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

threatening Louijeune and claims that the camera footage would demonstrate that no words were
exchanged between them and his back was to the officer. Id. 	Plaintiff asserts that this conduct
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 5. He states that he was not injured “just
lied on under false pretenses.” Id. As relief, Plaintiff seeks the termination of Defendants from
their employment and compensatory damages. Id.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A of 28 U.S.C. require the Court to conduct an initial
screening of this complaint. The Court is required to dismiss a complaint if the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended, is dismissed
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff may file suit against any person who, acting under
color of state law, deprives her “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws” of the United States. See, e.g., Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012); see also Owens
v. Balt. City State’s Attorney’s Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Balt.
City Police Dep’t v. Owens, 575 U.S. 983 (2015). However, § 1983 “‘is not itself a source of
substantive rights,’ but provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’”
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3
(1979)); see Safar v. Tingle, 859 F.3d 241, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). In other words, § 1983 allows “a
party who has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state law to seek relief.” City of
Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999).
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was
Case 1:26-cv-01625-SAG Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

committed by a “person acting under the color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
see Davison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 679 (4th Cir. 2019); Loftus v. Bobzien, 848 F.3d 278, 284-
85 (4th Cir. 2017); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 615 (4th Cir. 2009);
Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (4th Cir. 1997). “The first step in any such claim is
to pinpoint the specific right that has been infringed.” Safar, 859 F.3d at 245. Here, Plaintiff has
failed to allege facts that demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right based on the alleged
conduct of Defendant Louijeune.
Generally speaking, “not all undesirable behavior by state actors is unconstitutional.” Pink
v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 75 (4th Cir. 1995). “Mere threats or verbal abuse by prison officials, without
more, do not state a cognizable claim under § 1983.” Henslee v. Lewis, 153 Fed. App'x 178, 180
(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979)); see Huffman v.
Schevel, No. GJH-16-514, 2018 WL 4599648, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 24, 2018) (same); Shabazz v.
Pico, 994 F. Supp. 460, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (observing that “no matter how inappropriate,
unprofessional, or reprehensible [verbal harassment, including through the use of racial slurs and
race-based threats] might seem,” if it is “unaccompanied by any injury,” it “does not constitute the
violation of any federally protected right and, therefore, is not actionable under ... § 1983” (citation
omitted)). Moreover, there is no constitutional right to be free from false disciplinary charges, so
long as the inmate is granted a hearing and has the opportunity to rebut them. Pruitt v. FCI
Morgantown, 2020 WL 11232160, at *5 (N.D.W. Va. Sept, 28, 2020). Taking Plaintiff's
allegations as true and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference, he has failed to state
a claim based on any false accusation made by Defendant Louijeune.
Additionally, liability under §1983 attaches only upon personal participation by a
defendant in the constitutional violation. 	Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001).
Case 1:26-cv-01625-SAG Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

Other than naming Warden Bailey, Correctional Officers Curtis, Jude, and Pierre, and Hearing
Officer Bradley Mister as Defendants, Plaintiff provides no factual allegations against any of these
Defendants in the body of his Amended Complaint. ECF No. 8. As such, the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim against Defendants Bailey, Curtis, Jude, Pierre and Mister.
Finally, Plaintiff states that he was not injured as a result of the events he describes. Absent
personal deprivation or injury, he may not proceed under a Section 1983 theory of liability. See
generally Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
Plaintiff is forewarned that his right to pursue relief in federal court at public expense will
be greatly curtailed if he has three actions or appeals dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) and 1915A(b)(1). 	Specifically, if he has “on three or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless” he can establish he “is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, dismissal with or without prejudice
for any of the grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) may later be deemed a
“strike” under the Act. Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S._, 140 S.Ct. 1721, 1724 (2020), see also
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Pitts v. South Carolina, 65 F.4th 141 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding district court
may not, at the time it dismisses a complaint under §1915(e), determine that the dismissal will
count as a strike in the future application of § 1915(g)’s three strike rule).
This case is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim . A
separate order follows.
____________________________
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge
/s/ October 9, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-01625-SAG Document 10 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4