CTF is o wn e d b y the Cor re c tio ns Cor

po ratio n o f A me ri c a , whic h c on tr a c ts t o 1 provide c orre ctions service s to the District’s Depa rtment of Corre ctions. Defe ndant Warden Caulfield’s Motion to Dismis s, Affidavit of Donald H. Paul ¶ 1.

Iti s e s t a b l i s h e d th atth e D e p art m e n to f

C o r r e c t i o n s i s n o ta

s u a b l e e n t i ty. See 2 Cal dwe ll v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 901 F. Supp. 7, 11 (D.D .C. 1995); Fields v. D.C. De partment of Corrections , 789 F. Supp. 20, 22 (D.D .C. 1992). The Court her eby substitut es the District of Columbi a as the proper

municipal defe ndant. Se e Pa rk e r v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 588 F. Supp. 518, 522-23 (D.D .C. 1983). UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) MA UR I CE D ELAN E D AV I S, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C iv il Act io n No . 0 8-2 03 7 (P L F) ) D.C . DE P AR TM ENT OF ) CO RRE CTI ON S e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON In th is a c tio n b ro ug ht pro se under 42 U .S.C. § 1983, pl aintiff alleg es that he w as sexually hara ssed, denied me dical and de ntal treatment, phy sically assaulted a

nd reta liated ag ainst duringhis 18-month confinement at the District of Columbia J ail (“Jail”) and the District’s Corre ctional Tre atment Fa cility (“CTF ”). He names as def endants the D istrict of 1 Columbi a De partment of Corr ections (“ DOC”), D OC Direc tor Devon B rown, DO C Acting As sis tant A dmi nis tr ator

De br a Mil le r, CTF War de n John Ca ulf ie ld, Di re c tor

of Un ity He a lth Care I nc. Diana L app, and se vera l other employ ees of either D OC or CTF. Caulfield and L app 2 move sepa

rate ly to dismi ss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure2

[Dk t. N os . 1 5, 30 ] an d D OC , B ro wn and Mil le r m ov e c oll e c tiv e ly to d ism iss purs ua

nt t o Ru le 12(b)( 6) or f

or summary

judgme nt pursuant to Rule 56 [Dkt. No. 17] . Upon consider ation of the parties’ submissi ons and the e ntire re cord, the Court will gra nt summary

judgme nt to Caufield, g ra nt L a pp ’s mot ion

to d ism iss and

de ny DO C, B ro wn

and Mil le r’ s ( “ the Di str ic t of Col umb ia de fe nd ants ” ) m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt.
I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff was inca

rce rate d at the Jail on March 21, 2007, and tra nsfer red to CTF on May 21, 2007. Compl. at 7. W hile at the Jail, pl aintiff alleg edly was “ victimiz ed by

the sexual misconduct of [] one Sg t. Stevenson.” Id . Whil e at CTF , plaintiff alleg es that he w as denie d medical tre atment “f

or the de adly

MRSA infection (about 6-13- 07) and the pain & suffe ringof such due to a

very poor and unve ntilated CTF,” id ., “stabbe d & sc alded with hot wate r by another inmate due to staff

at C.T.F. labe ling me a

snitch . . . (incident took place on 6-23-07) ,” and
remove d from a dr

ugprog ram “ beca

use of my not wantingto participate in some [C ]hrist ian prac tices.” Id . Plaintiff also claims that “for over ( 1) y ear ,” his g rieva nces “ on all these we nt
unanswe red, ove rlooked or simply ignor ed. . . .” Id . at 8. Plaintiff filed this civil action on No v em b er

2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , wh i l e c o n fi n edatth e U n i t edS t at es P en i t en t i ary i nL ew i s b urg, Pennsylvania.
I I . L EG AL STA ND ARDS A cour t may dismiss a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a c laim upon wh ic h r e lie f c an b e g ra

nte d if , a ssumin gthe a lle g e d f

a c ts t o b e tr

ue and dr awi nga ll i nf

e re nc e s in the plaintiff’s f

avor, it appe ars that the pla intiff can pr ove no fa cts “c onsistent with the3

alleg ations in the complaint” to support the alleg ed violation. Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 55 0 U .S. 54 4, 56 3 ( 20 07 ); see H arris v. Ladner , 1 27 F .3 d 1 12 1, 11 23 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 7) ; Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp. , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). “While a complaint attac ked b y a Ru l e 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s d o es n o tn ee d d et ai l edfa ctu al al l ega t i o n s , . . . a p l ai n t i ff 's obligation to provide the ‘g rounds’ of his ‘e ntitle[ ment] t o relief ’ re quires more than labels a nd conclusions, and a

formulaic r ecitation of the elements of a cause of ac tion will not do[.] ” Be ll At lan ticCor

p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted); acc ord Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009).

Be cause the Court will be relying on matters outside the plea dings to re solve Caulfield’s and the District of Columbia defe ndants’ motions, it m ust treat those motions as seekingsummary

judgme nt. See Rule 12(d), F ed. R. Civ. P.; Orde r of F ebrua ry 10, 2009 (advisingplaintiff about this possibil ity and how to re spond to such a motion). Summary judgme nt shall be g rante d if the plea dings . . . a nd any aff idavits show that that there is no g enuine issue a s to any

materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” Rule 56( c), F ed. R. Civ. P. M ater ial fac ts are those that "mig ht affe ct the outcome of the
su itun der t he gov erni ng law
. . . . " Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When consideringa summary judgme nt motion, "the evidenc e of the non-movant is to be bel iev ed, andall ju st if

iab le i nfer ences are t o b e dra wn i n h is favo r." Id . at 255; se e als o W ashington Post Co. v. United States De p't of Health and Human Se rvice s , 865 F.2d 320, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The non- moving pa rty ' s opposition, however, must consist of more than me re unsupported alleg ations or denials a nd must be supported by

aff idavits or other c ompetent4

evidenc e settingforth spec ific fa cts showingthat there is a g enuine issue f or trial. SeeRul e 56 (e ), F e d. R. C iv. P.; Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Th e no n- mov ingpa

rt y is " re qu ir e d to pr ov ide e vid e nc e that w ou ld p e rm it a
rea sonable jury

to find" in his favor. Laningham v. United States Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) . I f t

he no n- mov ant' s e vid e nc e is " me re ly c olo ra ble " or " no t si g nif

ic antl y probative," summary

judgme nt may

be g rante d. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. at 249-50. To def

eat summary

judgme nt, then, plaintiff must have more than " a scintilla of evi den ce t o s up po rthi s cl aim s. " Freedm an v. MCI Tele communic ations Cor p. , 255 F.3d 840, 845 (D.C. Cir. 2001); acc ord Be n-Kote l v . H

owa rd Un iv e rsi ty , 319 F.3d 532, 536 ( D.C. Cir. 2003).
I I I . DI SCUS SI ON

Ca ulf ie ld a nd the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

de fe nd ants c la im that pl a int if f f a ile d to exhaust his admini strative re medies as r equire d by the Prison L itigation Refor m Act of 1995 (“ PL RA ” ), c od if

ie d at 42 U. S.C. § 1 99 7e (a ). In r e le va nt p art , th e PL RApr ov ide s th at: No ac tion shall be broug ht with respec t to prison conditions under sec tion 1983 of this ti tle, or any oth e r F e de ra l la

w, by a pr iso ne r c on fi ne d to any

ja il, prison, or other c orre ctional fa cility until such administrative re medies as a re a vailable a re exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) . The e x haustion require ment of Section 1997e( a) is manda tory and “applies to a ll prisoners see king r edre ss for prison cir cumstance s or occ urre nces.” Porter v. Nus sle , 534 U.S. 516, 520 (2002). Section 1997e( a) “ aff ord[s] corr ections off

icials time and opportunity

to addre ss complaints internally befor e allowingthe initiation of a fede ral c ase,” and,5

wher e possible, to “satisfy the inmate, ther eby

obviating the need f

or litigation.” Id . at 524-25. A p ri s o n er

mu s tco mp l et e t h e a dm i n i s tra t i v e p ro ce s s “r ega rd l es s o f t h e r el i ef o ff er edth ro u gh administrative ave nues.” Booth v. Churner , 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001). Thus, a prisoner ma

y file a c ivil action conce rningconditions of confine ment under f eder al law only

afte r he ha s exhausted his administ rative r emedies. J ac k so n v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 2 54 F .3 d 2 62 , 2 69 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 1) ; Sa mp lev . La

pp in , 424 F. Supp.2d 187, 190-91 (D .D.C. 2006).
A. A G e nu ineIs su e Ex ist s o n P lai nti

ff’ s E x ha us tio n o

f th e DO C Cla im Plaintiff alleg es that he w as sexually assaulted by

a DOC c orre ctions office r. Compl. at 7. DOC’s I nmate Gr ievanc e Proce dure ( “I GP”) is set for th in the I nmate Ha

ndbook. SeeDistrict of Columbia Defs’ Mot., Ex . 1 [Dkt. No. 17-2] at 10-11. In a sepa rate section of the Handbook e ntitled “Prevention and Elimination of Sexual Abuse,” inmates who ha ve bee n sexually assaulted by

an employ ee or

another inmate ar e dire cted to “[t]ell a staff member ” and/or “ [c] all the Confidential Sexual Mi sconduct Hotline . . . fr om any inmate telephone ,” which is monitored by

the Off ice of Interna l Affa irs (“O I A”)
. Id . at 15 . T he OIA the n is require d to interview the a ccuse r and to “ take a ction,” such a s transfe rringthe employ ee f rom the
acc user’ s housing unit and f orbidding any

contac t, placingthe ac cuser in seg reg ated housingor transfe rringthe ac cuser

to another unit or institution. Id
. “A l l i n m at e gr i ev an ce s th atal l ege sexual mi sconduct by

a DOC e mploy ee a g ainst the inmate ar e re fer red to the O I A for investigation.” District of Columbia Defs’ Mot., Decla ration of B enjamin Collins (“Colli ns Dec l.”) [Dkt. No. 17-3] ¶ 3.Def endants re cog nize the “spec ific g rieva nce pr ocedur e for

inmates to repor

t 3 alleg ations of sexual misconduct” as the “ administrative policy in place which Plaintiff was require d to exhaust prior to filing this matter in Court.” Memora ndum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defe ndants District of Columbia Depa rtment of Corre ctions, Devon B rown a nd Debr a Miller’s Motion to Dismiss or in t he Alter native, for

Summary

J udg ment at 7 (c iting Handbook at 14-15). 6

A sea rch of “the DO C OI A databa se” f ailed to locate a sexual misconduct g rieva nce f rom plaintiff, id . ¶

5, but pl a int if

f h a s st ate d “ un de r p e na lty of pe rj ur y that he did

te ll
sever al staff

members of

such,” Exhaustion of Complaint P roce dure f or Sexual Mis conduct Claim by Plaintiff [ Dkt. No. 29] at 2. Telling a staff me mber is listed as one of two way s for a

n inmate to repor

t sex ual misconduct, and pla intiff rig htly argues that the Ha

ndbook require s no further act by the ac cuser . Thus, whether OIA – which a

ppare ntly lear ns of such c laims either 3 from a sta ff membe r or f

rom its monit oringof the hotline – has a rec ord of plaintiff’ s complaint to a staff member is of little probative va lue. Rather, the dispositi on of the District’s motion turns on the par

ties’ cr edibility

on the mater ial fac t of whethe r plaintiff infor med a staf

f member about the alleg ed sexual assault. Such a de termination is a fa ct-findingfunction, “not [that] of a judge " on summar

y judgme nt. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. at 255. The Court there fore will deny

the District of Columbia defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt based
so le ly on the fa ilure to e xha

us t a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s.
B. Plain tif f F aile d to Ex ha us t H

is A dm ini strati v e Re me die

s W ith CTF Un de r C TF ’s g ri e va

nc e pr oc e dure , inmate s mu st f ir st atte mpt

to i nf or ma lly
re so lve a matte r b e fo re purs uin gthe fi ve -s te p f or ma l g ri e va

nc e pr oc e ss. Th e fo rm a l pr oc e ss
re qu ir e s th e su

bmi ssi on of “ the Inf or ma l Re so lut ion

F or m to any sta ff me mbe r o r F a c ili ty Grieva nce Ma ilbox ” within seven da y s of the incident. Caulfie ld’s Mot., Affidavit of Dona ld H.Grieva nces pe rtainingto medical or c ulinary issues are routed to the Contrac t Monitor 4 instead of the War den. Id . ¶ 8c. 7 Pa ul ( “ Pa ul A ff ’t ” ) [D kt. No . 1 5- 2] ¶

8. I f d iss atis fi e d w iththe inf or ma l r e so lut ion , th e inm ate has five da

y s from his rec eipt of the re sponse to the informal r esolution to submi t a forma l g ri e va nc e to a g ri e va nc e of fi c e r, fi ve da

y s f ro m hi s r e c e ipt

of the g ri e va

nc e of fi c e r’ s d e c isi on

to appea l to the Warden, and f ive day s from the Warde n’s dec ision to appeal to DOC’s Contrac t Monitor. Id
. I f still dis satisfied, the inmate ha s five day s from re ceipt of the Contract Monitor’s

4 decision to appe al to the DOC Dire ctor. Id . D ur ingpla int if f’ s in c arc e ratio n at CT F , a n inmate could by pass the informa l resolution if he filed his for mal g rieva

nce w ithin seven day s of the incident. Id . ¶ 9.

CTF ’s re c or ds sh owthat pl a int if f s ub mitte d tw o s e pa

ra te g ri e va nc e s d ur inghis
c on fi ne me nt t

he re . O n July

4, 20 07 , p la int if

f c la ime d th at “ he did

no t r e c e ive any

out- of -c e ll
rec reation” while housed in the Spec ial Manag ement Unit on J uly 3-4, 2007. Paul Aff

’t ¶ 13 & Attachment B . The g rieva nce w as investig ated a

nd denied, plaintiff unsuc cessf ully appea led and the Warden ultimately

“denie d the g rieva

nce a ppeal on August 17, 2007.” Id . On August 21, 20 07 , p la int if

f c la ime d th at on

thr e e se pa

rate oc c a sio ns , th e e sc or

t of fi c e r a rr ive d 3 0 mi nute s late to escort him and other

inmates to the law librar

y . Id . ¶ 14 & Attachment C. The grieva nce w as investigated and de nied on Octobe r 9, 2007. Plaintiff “submitted an uncle ar a ppeal, whic h was denied by Warden Caulfie d on November 9, 2007.” Paul Aff

’t ¶ 14. CTF has no r ecor d that plaintiff submitted proper grieva nces on the alleg ed incidents formingthe basis of this civil action, id . ¶ 15 ; seeCompl. at 7, and plaintiff has not provided a

ny evidenc e to the contr ary . Rather, plaintiff a sserts “that the ba sis of [hi s] complaintPlaintiff has not proffe red a ny documentation of his pursuit of a dminist rative 5 re me die s o n th e mor e se ri ou s c ha rg e s st e mmi ngfr om h is m e dic a l tr e atme nt, the phy sic a l a ssa ult s and his remova l from a dr ugprog ram. SeeCompl. at 7.

8 is the ref usal and de nial of re sponse to many g rieva nces[,]” Pl .’s Motion in Response and Ultimately

Motion to Deny

Def endant John Caulfield[ ’]s Moti on to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 24] at 1. Plaintiff proffe rs an inmate grieva nce f orm conc erningonly

poor ventilation and the de nial of toi le t c le ans ingmate ri a ls. Dk t. N o. 28 at 6- 7. B ut t

hat do c ume nt f

a ils to p ro vid e c re dib le 5
e vid e nc e of

pla int if f’ s e xha us tio n o f e ve n th os e c omp ara tiv e ly min or c la ims be c a

us e it l a c ks a “date stamp of the g rieva

nce of fice r or a g rieva nce numbe r,” which “a s a rule” is provided “upon
re c e ipt and pr ior to r e vie w. ” De fe nd ant C a ulf ie ld’ s Re ply

in S up po rt

of Hi s Mo tio n to Di smi ss, Second Af

fidavit of Dona ld H. Paul [ Dkt. No. 32-2] ¶ 4. Be sides, Paul surmises that the proff ere d g rieva

nce, e ven if re ceive d, would have be en denie d as untimely beca use plaintiff states that he wa s awa

re of the subject c onditions “for more tha n a month,” or a s improper beca use it “combines multiple issues.” Id . The e x haustion require ment is not satisfied “by filing an untimely

or otherw ise proce durally defe ctive administrative grieva nce or appea l.” W

oo dfo rd v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006).

Given the f

oreg oing f

laws in plaintiff’s prof

fer ed evide nce, the lack of any evidenc e that plaintiff pur sued his administrative re medies on the more serious cha rg es at issue,
and e vid e nc e that pl a int if

f k ne w a bo ut a nd ind e e d util ize d CT F ’s g ri e va nc e pr oc e ss t o r e dr e ss two other incide nts, the Court concludes that no r easona ble jury could find – base d solely on plaintiff’s testimony

– that he prope rly

exhausted his administ rative r emedies on the underlying claims of this civil action ag ainst CTF. See J oh ns on v . W

as hingto n M

e tro po lit an Ar e a Tran sit Au tho rit y , 883 F.2d 125, 128 ( D.C. Cir. 1989) (" The re moval of a f actua l question from the juryBe cause the claim is fore closed by the PL RA’s exhaustion requirement, the Court 6 wi ll n ot a dd

re ss C a ulf ie ld’ s v a lid

argume nt t

hat th e c omp la int

fa ils to s tate a

c la im a g a ins t hi m in his indivi dual ca

pacity
. SeeCaulfied Mot. at 6. 9 is most l ikely

when a plaintiff' s claim is supported solely by the plaintiff' s own self-se rving testimony , unsupported by corr oboratingevidenc e, and unde rmined either by other c redible
e vid e nc e [or ] phy sic a l im po ssi bil ity [.]" ) ( c itatio ns omi tte d) . T he Court the re fo re fi nd s th at Caulfield is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. 6
C. Plainti ff Fails t o State a Claim Against Diana Lapp In a Se c tio n 1 98 3 a c tio n, the c omp la int surv ive s a

Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to dismiss if it establishes the depr ivation of “rights, privilege s, or immuniti es sec ured by the Constit ution and laws” by a per son actingunder c olor of state la w, includingDistrict of Columbi a law. 42 U .S.C. § 1983. L app sug g ests that neither she nor Unity is a state ac tor but acknow ledg es that Unity

contra cts with DOC to provide medica l treatment to District of Columbi a inmates. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Def endant Dia

na L app, Medic al Dire ctor, Unity Hea lth Care, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss at 1. Bec ause L app’s statements ar e unsworn a nd undocumented, the Court cannot re ly on them to resolve the pe nding motion. Se e Mc

Ma nu s v . D ist

ric t of Colum bia , 530 F. Supp.2d 46, 64 (D.D .C. 2007) (“F actua l alleg ations in briefs of me moranda of law ma

y not be consider ed whe n decidinga Rule 12(b) (6) mot ion [.]” ) ( c itatio ns omi tte d) . B ut e ve n if L a pp we re a c tin gun de r c olo r o f D istri c t of Col umb ia law base d on “the joint activity theory of sec tion 1983 liabili ty ,” Hoai v. Vo , 935 F.2d 308, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1991), she c ould not be held liable for the ac tions of DOC or CTF e mploy ees.10 An individual may

be per sonally

liable under

Section 1983 only

if it is shown that she direc tly

participated in the wrong ful ac ts. See A shcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . at 1948; Cameron v. Thornburgh , 983 F.2d 253, 258 ( D.C. Cir. 1993); Mey er v. Re no , 9 11 F . Su pp . 1 1, 15 (D .D .C. 1996) (c iting ca ses); Pr ic e v . Ke lly , 847 F. Supp. 163, 169 (D.D .C. 1994), a ff 'd , 56 F.3d 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Section 1983 provides no ba sis for re cover y on a theor

y of respondeat superior
. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct . at 1948; Rice v . District of Columbia Public Defende r Servic e , 531 F. Supp.2d 202, 204 (D.D .C. 2008) (citations omitted). Be cause plaintiff has pl eadedno fact s t hatdi rect ly im pl ica te Lapp i n t he al legedwro ngdo in g at ei th er t he J ail or C TF, the Court g rants this defe ndant’s motion to dism iss for fa ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief can be g rante d.
I V. CONCLUSI ON

For the fore g oing r easons, the Court grants summary judgme nt to defenda

nt Caulfield, g rants def

endant L app’s Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismi ss, and denies the District of Col umb ia de fe nd ants ’ m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. An

a pp ro pr iate Or de r a c c omp anie s th is Memorandum Opinion.
/s/___________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: June 11, 2009