 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Earle v. Gunnell3/29/1989
Steven Earle (Earle), the plaintiff below, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Washington County (Corderman, J.) granting the appellees', the State and Robert Gunnell (Gunnell), motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment. We discern three issues from the appellant's brief. The first two of these issues are similar to those addressed by the Court of Appeals this term in McCullough Page 650} v. Wittner, 314 Md. 602, 552 A.2d 881 (1989) (holding that "a Maryland prison inmate, seeking monetary damages for personal injuries resulting from a correctional officer's alleged tortious conduct, which occurs in one of the institutions covered by the Inmate Grievance Commission statute, must file a complaint with and exhaust his remedies before the Commission prior to bringing a common law tort action."). We rephrase Earle's first two issues in the terms used by the Court of Appeals in McCullough:
I. " hether a Maryland prison inmate, seeking monetary damages [from the State] for personal injuries resulting from a correctional officer's alleged tortious conduct, which occurs in one of the institutions covered by the Inmate Grievance Commission statute, must file a complaint with and exhaust his remedies before the Commission prior to bringing a . . . [claim under the Maryland Tort Claims Act]." McCullough, 314 Md. at 605, 606, 552 A.2d 881.
II. " hether a Maryland prison inmate, seeking monetary damages for personal injuries resulting from a correctional officer's alleged tortious conduct, which occurs in one of the institutions covered by the Inmate Grievance Commission statute, must file a complaint with and exhaust his remedies before the Commission prior to bringing . . . a [cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983]". McCullough, 314 Md. at 605, 606, 552 A.2d 881.
III. Whether appellant alleged facts sufficient to raise a constitutional claim against appellee, Gunnell, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
FACTS
On February 20, 1985, Earle, an inmate at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Hagerstown, was attacked in his cell and stabbed repeatedly by two fellow inmates. As a result of this incident, Earle filed a two-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County. Count I was brought pursuant to Title 42, U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that Gunnell, in his capacity as a State correctional officer, had violated Earle's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Rights; Count II alleged a negligence claim against the State under the Maryland Tort Claims Act. The State and Gunnell responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss both counts, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment on both counts. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment on Count I on the ground that Earle's allegation against Gunnell stated, at most, a claim for mere negligence and, therefore, was insufficient as a matter of law to support a § 1983 action for deprivation of due process. The court also granted the motion to dismiss Count II for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Earle's failure to exhaust his administrative remedy provided by the Inmate Grievance Commission, Md.Ann. Code art. 41, § 4-102.1(1) (1986 & Supp.1988) formerly § 4-1104(1). We first dispose of Earle's complaints regarding the court's disposition of Count II.
I.
Tort Claims Act
(Count II)
Appellant's first issue was answered by the Court of Appeals this term in the case of McCullough v. Wittner, in
which the Court held that a prison inmat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|