Hendrick v. Dean, Jr. et al

INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LARNELL E. HENDRICK,
Plaintiff,
V. 	Civil Action No.: BAH-24-1214
WARDEN ROBERTS DEAN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Self-represented°PlaintiffLarnell E. Hendrick, an inmate at Jessup Correctional Institution
("JCI"), filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants _have
retaliated against him for filing grievances against them. ECF 1 (complaint);-ECF 8 (supplement).
Defendants Warden Robert Dean, Jr., Lieutenant Bilal Ahmed, Dr. Jacqueline Moore, Captain
Oluwole Olowe, Officer Ogunduyile, Officer Ngome, Ayo Ogunmolasuyi, Candace Welds,
Captain Olanrewaju Owolabi, Officer Olusegun Akinwekomi; and the Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS") (collectively "Defendants") filed a Motion to
Dismiss (the "Motion"). 1 ECF 3 8. 	Hendrick responded (ECF 41) and Defendants replied (ECF
57). 	No hearing is necessary. 	See Loe. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). 	For the reasons stated ,below,
Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. 	COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
In his verified Complaint, Hendrick claims that Defendants violated his rights under the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. ECF I, at 3. He also
alleges the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Maryland
1 The Clerk will be directed to amend the docket to reflect Defendants' full and correct names.
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 9

Decforation ofRights. Id. Hendrick states that he was transferred from North Branch Correctional
Institution to JCI in 2017 pursuant to a settlement agreement in a prior action he brought in this
Court, see Civ. No. DKC-14-2398. 	ECF 1, at 4. 	DPSCS agreed Hendrick would be seen by
medical staff within 30 days of arrival to evaluate his condition and need for a single cell. 	Id.
Hendrick says that no "patient care conference" occurred but claims he was assigned to a "medical
single cell." Id. at 4-5. Hendrick continued to be in a single cell for the next seven years. Id.
• 	'
On September 17, 2023; Hendrick submitted a grievance to Captain Olowe requesting that
his cell door be deadlocked when he exited. ECF 1, at 5.' A week later, Olowe told Hendrick "to
stop filing grievances before [he] get [sic] his self in trouble." Id. 	Shortly thereafter, Hendrick
filed a grievance related to attendance rules for a· family day event. 	Id. at 5-6. 	Days before the
event, Hendrick was moved to administrative segregation without being given a reason. Id. at- 6.
During a video hearing with the Administrative Segregation Review Board (consisting of Ahmed,
Owolabi, Welds; Ogunmolasuyi, and Dr. Moore), Lt. Ahmed allegedly told Hendrick the move
was "because of an investigation," but gave him no further information. Id. at 6-7 .
. Hendrick alleges several instances of mistreatment. He claims that Ogee and seven other
officers shook down his cell and that Ogee threatened to remove his name from an unidentified
grievance or he would have other inmates "deal with you." ECF 1, at 7. While in administrative
segregation, Hendrick was housed· with another inmate for three weeks. 	Id.; ECF. 8, at 12-13 ..
Ogunmolasuyi visited Hendrick and asked if he was ready to "sign off' on his grievances, stating
that his filings were the reason for his segregation. ECF 1, at 8. Dr. Moore also visited Hendrick
in segregation and urged him to sign off DI). the grievances asking, " ... do you want a quality of
life? If not, I'm not going to do-nothing for you." Id. at 14. When Hendrick told Dr. Moore it was
her job to help him with his anxiety, he says that Dr. Moore replied, "F---you." Id. Hendrick also
2
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 9

recounts an instance in which Olowe told him that Ogee and Ngome were not going to "let up off
of [Hendrick]" until he stopped filing grievances. Id. at 10.
On December 13, 2023, during another Review Board hearing, Welds and Ahmed told
Hendrick to stop writing up the staff or there would be consequences. 	Id. 	Owolabi and Welds
offered Hendrick a "body waiver" and told him he would be returned to a single cell in general
population ifhe signed it. Id. at 11. Hendrick signed it, noting that it was pursuant to the promised.
transfer, which Hendrick says Owolabi, Welds, and Akinwekomi confirmed. Id. at 12. Hendrick
explains he did so because he believed he would be safer in general population where tl)ere are
more people. Id. at I 6.
Hendrickwrote to Warden Dean on February 12, 2024, reasserting his request to have his
cell door locked when he exited to avoid it being ransacked. _ECF I, at 9-10. When he encountered
Dean-weeks later, Dean's response was, "I received your letter, so what." Id. at 10. Hendrick's
request was based on his own experience and reports froni other inmates-that Ngome and Ogee
would enter his cell when he was downstairs. Id. at I 0-11. When he confronted the officers, they
responded, "whatever mail you get inmates will get, whatever pictures you get the)l'll get." Id. at
11. Hendrick confirms that he saw various pieces of his personal and legal mail going around JCI.
Id. 	Ngome and Ogee told Hendrick they were directing inmates to threaten him because of the
grievances and prior lawsuits he filed._ ECF 8, at 7. 	On another occasion, Ogee threatened that
such treatment would continue even ifhe was transferred to another facility. Id. at 7~8.
On February 13, 2024, the day after Hendrick wrote to Warden Dean, he was called down
to the visiting room where Ogee told him he had been randomly selected for urinalysis. ECF I, at
13 .. While Hendrick gave his urine sample, Ogee said, "we've alerted all shifts to you, we've
3
I
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 9

assigned inmates to deal with you, and your settlement agreement has brought you here for us to
crush you." Id at 14.
As a result of Defendants' alleged misconduct, Hendrick asserts that he has suffered
emotional distress, fear, inability to sleep, fear of .being around others, increased headaches,
exacerbation of his idiopathic intracranial hypertension, anxiety, and depression. 	ECF I, at 15.
• He seeks monetary damages as relief. Id at 3, 17.
·In a supplement to his complaint filed on July 3, 2024, Hendrick asserts that DPSCS
violated his rights by failing to provide adequate space to store personal property. 	ECF 8, at 4.
He states that there are no Jockers that can be closed or locked._ Id. Hendrick contends that DPS CS
has violated numerous of its own policies and "arbitrarily entered into·a settlement agreement that
cause[d] substantial harm to [Hendrick]." Id at 6. He further asserts that Dean, Olowe, Ahmed,
Akinwekomi, and Owolabi are liable as supervisors because they are the supervisors of the
segregation housing unit. Id. at 6-7. Hendrick further requests that he be transferred to Mary land
Correctional Training Center or Western Correctional Institution for his safety. 	Id. at 15-16.
Defendants move to dismiss all claims. See ECF 38.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss 2 for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure l 2(b)( 6), the factual allegations of a complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief
2 Though Defendants' note in their motion that they seek summary judgment "in the alternative,"
ECF 38, at I, they offer no argument in support of summary judgment in their memorandum in
support of the motion (or in their reply brief) and repeatedly assert only that the claims "should be
dismissed," id at 11, 13. Summary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate "where the parties have
not had an opportunity for reasonable discovery." _E.l du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Ko/on Indus.,
Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011). 	Plus, Defendants provide no materials pertinent to the
Rule 56 standard and thus appear to have abandoned any-effort to seek that relief at this stage. As
sueμ, the Court will evaluate the motion as one seeking dismissal under Rule 12, not summary
judgment under Rule 56.
4
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 9

above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact)." 	Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
omitted). "To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff need not 'forecast' evidence sufficient to prove the
elements of the claim. 	However, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish those
elements." 	Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitied). 	In
reviewing a Rule l 2(b)( 6) motion, a court "must accept as true aH of the factual allegations
. contained in the complaint" and must "draw all reasonable inferences [from those facts] in favor
of the plaintiff." E.l du Pont de Nemours.& Co. v. Ko/on Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435,440 (4th Cir.
2011) (citations o.mitted).
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court's focus should be on the complaint. Sec'y of
State For Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). The Court may
also consider documents attached to the motion if they are integral to the complaint and authentic.
Id. 	Hendrick submits his own declaration with his response to Defendants' Motion. See ECF 41-
1. His declaration is outside the pleadings, and the Court will not consider it.
The Court is mindful that Hendrick is a self-represented litigant. 	A federal court must
liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants to allow them to fully develop potentially
meritorious cases. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But liberal construction does
not mean a court can ignore a clear faiJure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a. claim.
See Weller v. Dep 't of Soc. Servs. for City of Bait., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Defendants assert that Hendrick has failed to state any sufficient claims against Defendants
and therefore the Complaint, as supplemented, must be dismissed. See BCF 3 8-1. They state that
5.
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 9

even a liberal reading of the pleadings "fail[s] to yield anything beyond bald accusation[s] without
Constituti~nal implications." Id at 5.
A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state, its agencies, and
departments are immune from citizen suits in federal court absent state consent or Congressional
action. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Claims against
state employees acting in their official capacities are also subject to Eleventh Amendment
immunity because a suit against the state actor is tantamount to a suit against the state itself.
Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72 (1985). 	While the State of Maryland has waived its
sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts, see Md. Code Ann., State
Gov't § 12-204(a), it has not waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to suit in federal
court. See Chris Xv. Yes Care Health, Civ. No. BAH-23-2024, 2024 WL 3995166, at *6 (D. Md.
Aug. 29, 2024). Accordingly, to the extent Hendrick sues Defendants in their official capacities,
DPSCS and all individual Defendants in their official capacities are immune from suit and those
claims must be dismissed. 	See Clark v. Maryland Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 316 F.
App'x 279, 282 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services is undoubtedly an arm of the state for purposes of§ 1983" and therefore
immune from suit under § 1983).
B. Retaliation ,
To state a claim ofretaliation for exercising a First Amendment right, a plaintiff must allege
that: (l)the plaintiff engaged in protected First Amendment activity; (2) the defendant took some
'
action that adversely affected the plaintiffs First Amendment rights; and (3) there was a causal
relationship between the protected activity and the defendant's conduct. See Shaw v. Foreman, 59
6
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 9

F. 4th 121, 130 (4th Cir. 2023); Mar_tin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239,249 (4th Cir. 2017); Constantine v
Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 479,499 (4th Cir. 2005). In assessing a First
Amendment claim of retaliation, the question, "from an objective standpoint," is "whether the
challenged conduct would 'likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First
Amendment rights."' 	Snoeyenbos v. 	Curtis, 60 F.4th 723, 731 	(4th Cir. 	2023) (quoting
Constantine, 411 F.3d at 500). 	Thus, "the challenged conduct" must "generate more than a de
\ 	minimis inconvenience:" 	Id 	at 730. 	Moreover, the Fourth Circuit has stated: "An action
motivated by retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected ,right is actionable, even if
the act, when taken for a different reason, might have been legitimate." Martin v. Duffy, 977 F. 3d
294, 304 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up) (citation omitted).
Defendants ·assert that Hendrick has failed to allege a viable retaliation claim because he .
does not assert that the alleged misconduct had any chilling effect on Hendrick or otherwise
impaired his First Amendment rights. ECF 38-1, at l l. The Court "disagrees. First, it is clear that
• "officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances." Booker v. S.C. Dep 't of Corr.,
855 F.3d 533, 544 (4th Cir. 2017); Martin, 858 F.3d at 249 ("[B]y alleging that he filed a grievance
against a sergeant for battery, Martin has sufficiently pleaded that he engaged in protected
conduct."). 	Moreover, 	Hendrick does not have to show that he was personally deterred from
exercising his First Amendment rights in light of Defendants' actions, only that the conduct would
have a chilling effect on "a person of ordinary firmness," Constantine, 411 F. 3d at 500, and the
effect was "more than a de minimis inconvenience," ACLU of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico Cnty., Md.,
999 F.2d 780, 786 (4th Cir. 1993). Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has "never held that a plaintiff must
prove that the allegedly retaliatory conduct caused her to cease First Amendment activity
altogether." 	Constantine, 411 F. 3d at 500. 	Accepting the facts in the Complaint as true, as the
7
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 9

Court must at this early-stage of the litigation, Hendrick alleges that in response to the grievances
he filed, he was threatened, placed in administrative segregation without cause, lost visitation
opportunities, was double celled despite his single cell order, had his mail distributed to other
inmates at JCI, and was subjected to a drug test, 	These allegations cannot be described as de
minimus injuries. 	Hendrick has plausibly alleges that a person of ordinary firmness would be
fearful that continuing to file grievances would result in more adverse actions such as placement
on administrative segregation.. See Martin, 858 F .3d at 250 (holding that an inmate "sufficiently
alleged [] adverse action against him by confining him in segregation" after the filing of
grievances).
Defendants' argument that Hendrick's filing of"a multitude of separate documents i11 this
case defies any allegation of a chilling effect," ECF 3 8-1, at 11, is unavailing. 	Putting aside that
the filing of documents relates to this case and not the institutional grievances he alleges he was
retaliated against for filing, Hendrick repeatedly asserts that he was fearful of Ahmed and thus
excluded facts and documents from both his grievance and court filings because he feared for his
life if Defendants knew he_ was pursuing complaints against them. See ECF 1, at 9; ECF 41, at 8.
Defendants' Motion will be denied as to Hendrick's retaliation claim.
Defendants also argue that several instances of the alleged misconduct do not state
constitutional claims separate from Hendrick's retaliation claim. 	See ECF 38-1, at'5-6, 8-9. 	It
may be true that when considered individually, certain of these allegations may not be viable as
they would, standing alone, constitute a mere "de minimis inconvenience." ACLU of Md., Inc.,
999 F.2d at 786. However, when considered as a course of conduct purportedly designed to quell
. access to remedies to which Hendrick is entitled, the Court agrees that Hendricks has properly
alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against all Defendants except DPSCS. 	Further,
8
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 8 of 9

Hendrick's claims for intentional infliction of emotion distress and alleged violations of the
Maryland Declaration of Rights will also move forward as Defendants raise no more than
conclusory arguments for their dismissal. See ECF 38-1, at 7.
Finally, Defendants argue that Hendrick's request for damages as relief is inappropriate
because he has not sufficiently plead that he suffered a physical injury in addition to his emotional
distress or how Defendants were the reasonable cause of that distress. ECF 38-1, at 11-12. While
true that Hendricks lists emotional damages among his .stated injuries, Defendants conveniently
omit that Hendrick also claims that he suffered from increased headaches and exacerbation of his
idiopathic intracranial hypertension in addition to anxiety and depression. ECF 1, at 15. Hendrick
has thus plead sufficient injuries for his damages claim to survive a motion to dismiss.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Hendrick's claims against DPSCS and Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed. The
remaining Defendants shall answer the Complaint within 30 days of the issuance of this·
memorandum opinion and the accompanying Order. Hendrick, who has previously requested the
assistance of counsel, wiU be appointed counsel to represent him in this case moving forward.
A separate Order follows.
Dated: January 20, 2026 	Isl
Brendan A. Hurson
United States District Judge
9
Case 1:24-cv-01214-BAH Document 58 Filed 01/20/26 Page 9 of 9