Broadnax v. Yes Care Corp et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MARCUS JAMAR BROADNAX,
Plaintiff,
v.
YESCARE CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: PX-24-2053
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending in this pro se civil rights action are two motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
YesCare Corporation (“Yes Care”) and Warden William Bailey (“Warden Bailey”). 	ECF Nos.
20, 22. After having been advised of his right to respond, ECF Nos. 21 & 23, Plaintiff Marcus
Jamar Broadnax (“Broadnax”) opposes YesCare’s motion. ECF No. 24. The Court has reviewed
the papers and finds no hearing necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the following
reasons, the motions shall be granted.
On May 22, 2024, while confined at Eastern Correctional Institution (“ECI”), two inmates
physically assaulted and stabbed Broadnax. ECF No. 7 at 4-5. Broadnax was transported to the
ECI medical unit and next to the emergency room at Tidal Health where he was treated for six stab
wounds. Id. When he returned to ECI, Broadnax saw nurse Jamison Post on May 23, 2024. ECF
No. 7-1. 	Nurse Post noted that Broadnax was to have a follow-up visit in one week. 	Id. at 3.
Broadnax filed a sick call shortly after seeking pain medication and asserting that his stitches
needed to be removed. ECF No. 7 at 4. He followed on with additional medication requests, but
all were denied or ignored. Id. His sutures were removed on June 1. ECF No. 7-1 at 4.
Case 1:24-cv-02053-PX Document 27 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
In connection with the requests for medical attention, Broadnax filed an administrative
remedy (“ARP”) with Warden Bailey, asserting denial of medical care. 	Id. at 7; ECF No. 7-2.
Warden Bailey found the ARP “meritorious in part,” and acknowledged that while the emergency
room that discharged Broadnax did not prescribe pain medication, Broadnax had not yet been seen
by medical staff upon his return. 	ECF No. 7-2 at 1. 	Warden Bailey further noted that medical
staff had been “advised” that they must “adhere to the DPSCS Clinical Services and Inmate Health
Operations Manual.” 	Id. 	Based on the above, the Amended Complaint avers that by denying
Broadnax care, YesCare and Warden Bailey violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 8.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the Court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true and construes the facts most
favorably to the plaintiff. 	Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 	“However,
conclusory statements or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
[suffice].’” 	E.E.O.C. v. Performance Food Grp., Inc., 16 F. Supp. 3d 584, 588 (D. Md. 2014)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above a speculative level.” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 	“‘[N]aked assertions’ of wrongdoing
necessitate some ‘factual enhancement’ within the complaint to cross ‘the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Although pro se pleadings are construed generously to allow for the development of a
potentially meritorious case, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), courts cannot ignore a clear
failure to allege facts setting forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City
of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The ‘special judicial solicitude’ with which a
Case 1:24-cv-02053-PX Document 27 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
district court should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate.
Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.”)
(internal citation omitted)). 	“A court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by
identifying pleadings that, because they are not more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 665 (2009).
The Court begins with YesCare’s motion to dismiss for failure to articulate a plausible
claim against it. 	ECF No. 20. 	Liability attaches to government agencies or entitles only if the
alleged constitutional wrongs had been committed pursuant to the agency or entity’s policy,
custom or practice. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690–91
(1978). See also id. at 694 (“[W]hen execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made
by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy,
inflicts the injury the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”); Love-Lane v. Martin,
355 F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004). Monell liability has been extended to private entities operating
under color of state law, including private prison health care providers. See, e.g., West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988); Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320 (1981); Rodriguez v. Smithfield
Packing Co., 338 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2003); Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715,
728 (4th Cir. 1999). 	Missing here, however, are any facts which make plausible that YesCare
operated pursuant to a policy, custom or practice, the adherence to which caused the violation of
Broadnax’s right to constitutionally adequate medical care. 	See, e.g., Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of
Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Kirby v. City of Elizabeth City, 388 F.3d
440, 451 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1187 (2006); Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463, 471
(4th Cir. 2003).1 The claim against YesCare, thus fails on this element alone.
1 Broadnax relies on the DPSCS Clinical Services and Inmate Health Operations Manual as the policy which governs
YesCare, and he emphasizes the policy prohibits intentional denial of medical care, ECF No. 24 at 14. Even if the
Case 1:24-cv-02053-PX Document 27 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Next as to Warden Bailey, although he seeks summary judgment in the alternative, he
submits no materials outside the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court will treat the motion as one to
dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim as to him.
Warden Bailey principally argues that the claim fails because no facts make plausible that
he personally participated in any denial of Broadnax’s medical care. ECF No. 22-2 at 7. Bailey
is correct that an individual state actor can only be held liable for a § 1983 claim if he personally
participated in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d
391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001). When viewing the complaint facts most favorably to Broadnax, Warden
Bailey played no role in Broadnax’s care. 	Bailey’s review of Broadnax’s ARP alone does not
suffice. Cf. Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (allegation that warden
“rubber 	stamped” 	grievances 	was 	not 	enough 	to 	establish 	personal 	participation) 	(citing
Whitington v. Ortiz, 307 Fed, Appx. 179, 193 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“denial of the
grievances alone is insufficient to establish personal participation in the alleged constitutional
violations.”)). Thus, the claim against Bailey must also be dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motions and dismisses the Amended
Complaint. Broadnax is forewarned that if, while incarcerated, he has three actions or appeals
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or insufficient as a matter of law, his right to file a complaint in
federal court without first paying the filing fee will be greatly curtailed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, it is this 9th day of January 2026, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. 	YesCare’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) IS GRANTED;
Court assumes that YesCare is governed by the DPSCS policy, the directive itself prohibits intentional denial of timely
care. So YesCare’s adherence to this policy cannot be said to cause the denial of timely care.
Case 1:24-cv-02053-PX Document 27 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
2. 	Warden William Bailey’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 22), construed as a motion to dismiss, IS GRANTED;
3. 	The Amended Complaint IS DISMISSED;
4. 	The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Opinion and a
copy of this Order to Broadnax and to counsel; and
5. 	The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.
________________ 	_____________________________
Date 	Paula Xinis
United States District Judge
1/9/25	/S/
Case 1:24-cv-02053-PX Document 27 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 5