Bangura v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-02728
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND | ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., é Plaintiffs, ‘ □ v. . CIVIL NO. JKB-23-2728 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ‘ AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, - et al., * Defendants. . x * * te * x * * * k te te MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs Alpheaus Bangura, Akinlolu Britto, Colenzo Grant, Maranda Guy, Macardy Lovelace, and Selissa Brown brought this case against several Defendants. They brought suit against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”) and Commissioner J. Philip Morgan, in his official capacity. They also brought suit against the following Defendants, in both their official and individual capacities, and refer to these Defendants as the “40 West Defendants”: Warden William Bohrer, Security Chief Joseph Lohman, Gary Durboraw, Joseph Garlitz, Willis Hendershot, Paul Anderson, Mark Clopper, Ray Foust, Jeffrey Golden, Geneva Moats, Eric Kretzer, Kevin Tew, Jennifer Latchford, Thomas Warrenfeltz, Brandon Guyer, Jason Basore, Wilmont Bair, Michael Lavrenchik, Terry Myers, Richard Weldon, Brent Little, Russell Souders, and Trevor Souders. Pending before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Claims filed by DPSCS, Morgan, Bohrer, Lohman, Durboraw and Garlitz (ECF No. 62) and a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Claims filed by the remaining Defendants (ECF No. 68). For the reasons set forth below, the Motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Background Plaintiffs are all employees of DPSCS, working at the Maryland Correctional Training Center (“MCTC”), a prison facility. (ECF No. 48 § 33.) The 40 West Defendants are “agents, servants and/or employees of DPSCS and work at MCTC.” (/d. § 13.) Plaintiffs allege that “a group of Caucasian COs organized to engage in illegal behavior and to take administrative control of MCTC, creating a race-based gang called ‘40 West’, ‘40 West Boys’, and/or ‘40 West Gang’ decades prior to the present.” (/d. §/ 47.) In short, Plaintiffs allege that they have been subjected to various forms of retaliation and discrimination at the hands of 40 West and DPSCS. With respect to 40 West, for instance, Plaintiffs allege that its members “engage in coordinated activities to provide mutual support and assistance to each other within the workplace, including, but not limited to, promotion of their members even when unjustified, assignment to the most desirable work posts, exemption from weekend work shifts, preferential and fraudulent assignment of overtime shifts, and avoidance of disciplinary action.” (/d. § 49.) Plaintiffs allege that the members of 40 West conspired to “injure, oppress, threaten, and/or intimidate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals,” such that they “will not be promoted, receive overtime opportunities, and/or receive arms cards,” and that this conspiracy occurred “because of [Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated individuals’] protected statuses, including race and national origin,” and “because they engaged in a protected activity and/or opposed conduct they reasonably believed to be unlawful related to the treatment they were subjected to on the basis of their protected status, including race and national origin.” (/d. §{ 56-58.) □

Plaintiffs also allege, infer alia, that they experienced “unequal and harsher discipline compared to Caucasian officers” (id. {| 72-83); that they were discriminated against in terms of pay and promotions (id. | 84-102); that they were discriminated against because they were not permitted to receive arms training that is beneficial to their career advancement (id. | 103-109);

that they were denied overtime opportunities in favor of white officers (id. §§ 110-20); that they were retaliated against for engaging in protected activity (id. J§ 124-134); and that they were subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment (id. §§ 135-145). Each Plaintiff also provides certain allegations regarding the harm they allege they suffered individually. (/d. 152- 202.)

On this basis, Plaintiffs bring eight counts.' Count I is brought against Morgan and the 40 West Defendants and is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; Count II is brought against DPSCS and Morgan and is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”; Count III is brought against DPSCS and Morgan and is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of MFEPA, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-601 et seq.”; Count IV is brought against DPSCS and Morgan and is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights”; Count V is brought against the 40 West Defendants and is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights”; Count VII is brought against the 40 West Defendants and is titled “Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)”; Count VIII is brought against the 40 West Defendants and is titled “Violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (‘RICO’) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)”; and Count IX is brought against the 40 West Defendants and is titled “Violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (‘RICO’) Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).”

' Plaintiffs bring Counts I-V and VII-IX. They do not bring a Count VI. The Court will refer to the counts as they are described in the Complaint.

II. Legal Standard When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jgbal, 446 U.S. at 662. A “pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” /d. at 678 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). il. Analysis Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint largely does not comply with the federal pleading standards. Plaintiffs make sweeping allegations, usually without providing any factual support for those allegations. This manner of pleading greatly distracts from any potentially meritorious claims that Plaintiffs might have. For the reasons below, the Court will dismiss most of the claims in the Amended Complaint, as specified below.

? The Court will not consider the affidavit that Defendants attached to their Motion to Dismiss in resolving the Motions. See Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, 510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[A] court is not to consider matters outside the pleadings ... when ruling on a motion to dismiss.”).

A. Claims Against 40 West Defendants As an initial matter, the Court will dismiss the claims against the majority of the individual Defendants. Plaintiffs—without any elaboration—simply assert that the individual Defendants (other than Commissioner Morgan) are in a gang called “40 West” and make up the “40 West Defendants,” (ECF No. 48 at 6), and Plaintiffs go on to make sweeping allegations against these “40 West Defendants.” (See, e.g., id. § 50 (“[T]he 40 West Defendants have been known to smuggle contraband (i.e., tobacco) into MCTC for both personal use and sale to inmates.”); id. 4 56 (“[T]he 40 West Defendants have conspired amongst themselves and others and/or committed overt acts to injure, oppress, threaten, and/or intimidate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals so that they will not be promoted, receive overtime opportunities, and/or receive arms cards.”).) Plaintiffs do not attempt to plausibly allege that these Defendants are part of the “40 West” gang, asserting essentially only that “[t]he 40 West Defendants are known and unknown members of ‘40 West’ who engage in coordinated activities,” with no factual allegations to support that contention. (Id. 949.) Further, the following Defendants are never even mentioned in the body of the Amended Complaint: Hendershot, Anderson, Clopper, Foust, Golden, Moats, Tew, Latchford, Guyer, Basore, Bair, Lavrenchik, Weldon, R. Souders, and T. Souders. The claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, given that there is not a single factual allegation lodged against them, and that Plaintiffs do not even plausibly allege that they are part of the “40 West” gang. See Johnson v. Dore, Civ. No. 12-3394-RWT, 2013 WL 5335626, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 2013) (“[Plaintiff's] Complaint does not include any allegations concerning [Defendants] to support a plausible claim against them. Indeed, as noted above, Johnson’s allegations repeatedly refer generally to ‘Defendants,’ without identifying specific Defendants or conduct.”); Willey v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Mary’s Cnty., 557 F. Supp. 3d 645, 664 (D. Md. 2021) (“Here, none of the individual

board members are mentioned in any factual allegations .. . . There are a few allegations alleging that, as a group, they discriminated against females and voted against initiatives to protect females from sexual harassment based on discriminatory animus, but such allegations that refer generally to the group, without identifying specific individuals or conduct, are insufficient to state a claim against any individual board member.” (emphasis in original)). In short, Plaintiffs cannot simply allege that these Defendants are part of a gang, and then make sweeping allegations against the gang, without any factual support and without alleging any personal conduct on the part of these Defendants. Thus, the remaining Defendants are: Bohrer, Lohman, Durboraw, Garlitz, Kretzer, Warrenfeltz, Myers, and Little (the “Remaining 40 West Defendants”), and DPSCS and Morgan. The Court notes at the outset that the factual allegations against most of the Remaining 40 West Defendants are extremely thin, and likely warrant summary dismissal as well. However, the Court discusses the claims against these individuals below as warranted. B. Count I — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 It is unclear what claim Plaintiffs seek to bring in Count I, and against whom. Count I is titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” and, in the title, purports to be raised against Commissioner Morgan and the 40 West Defendants. (See ECF No. 48 at 53.) However, Plaintiffs cite to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ud. at 99 216-18.) Plaintiffé also state that they seek to vindicate their “rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985.” (/d. § 230.) Further confusing matters, while Count | in its caption states that it is brought against “Defendant Morgan and 40 West Defendants,” no paragraph within Count I refers to Defendant Morgan, and Plaintiffs state that, with respect to this count, they “demand judgment, jointly and severally, against the 40 West Defendants,” with no reference to Morgan (or DPSCS). (/d. at 57.)

.

The Court can scarcely discern what claim Plaintiffs sought to bring in Count I and against which Defendants. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves appear confused. Puzzlingly, Plaintiffs state in their briefing that “[i]n Count I, Plaintiffs allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against all Defendants” and that “Count II asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically for equal protection and due process violations arising from discriminatory employment practices.” (ECF No. 71 at 9.) This is false. As already noted, Count I purports to be a § 1983 claim and Count II a Title VII claim, and neither was brought against all Defendants. (See ECF No. 48 (Count I titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983” brought against Morgan and the 40 West Defendants and Count II titled “Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” brought against Morgan and DPSCS).) Thus, as to Count I, Plaintiffs’ claim violates Rule 8(a)’s requirement that a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” On this basis alone, Count I must be dismissed in its entirety. To the extent Plaintiffs sought to bring a § 1983 claim, as it is titled, Plaintiffs are reminded that “§ 1983 claims are never cognizable against states, state agencies, or state agents acting in their official capacities, regardless whether the defendant state has waived Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Dyer v. Md. State Bd. of Educ., 187 F. Supp. 3d 599, 611 n.16 (D. Md. 2016), aff'd, 685 F. App’x 261 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original), Furthermore, Plaintiffs are reminded that vicarious liability is inapplicable to a § 1983 claim, and that there must be a showing of personal fault based upon a defendant’s personal conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (vicarious liability inapplicable in § 1983 suits); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (personal conduct required in a § 1983 suit).

eb oT Parent atte □□ eigenen a a ET : i “ae □□ □□□ Wig OS AR et yee ee ee ere OA een Sete eas Oe BO □ □ a ed fe fe “Hed ete Sop pie ns ee yee ah Baek eri cee Sy □□ □□□ oe HE |e oy STi ea ears lair al ae ge ee eee Aen et ee get Peseta at one et □□ □□□□ ee ee ee LS ae. Sap ee se sorted 2 kine ea ae Ses Ae pipoee iaeaec Taba Foe □□ □□ tats eps a igs os oe proc, agape nee eee SIP tye bape 2a “iS ; tae he? Pee va eer Se ten Le Be eee tn UES haa gee sears ne RX □ pt tie Eas tar she ents he, Poa eee eta STS Upbeat Sitate oak Senge SS bealine Grey □□□□ : | 7 a) ee a he nf are, RRR WI ee Fares! □□□ eee aes Mm □□□ aay * Betwck Sirah cera a, □ Seat eta. eee Seis aon eee ag ee PEE □□ Sars: ae: | Bare PEER” □□□ □□ oeee eee iy he Ee es Lee aay i ipa ee Lee a SE Fare □□ dl hie pul Seg ah Sees eee □□ Rie ae oie Bek et Rey | 3 Pt oe a ge □□ Bee sg fe Se Rik pale Cee San Se eee ee eee yee tet Se oe Sele □□□□□□□ □□ □□□ en ae Pins □□□ ayia ie arts es eT Bee nS Seen Gee pees eye mate tf, rid Greeti □□□□□□□ □□ Bots: Oo Pe Sopa a eee ae a Sagegaet ope eects AT CHER □□ 7 □□ SEM «Sas ae cape □□ a ik gear □□ □□□ tee □□□ Meat Ape Ses Pet Spee ce SES □ Se TERE □ = marae Che wat ooh eats Sep, tees AS Stes Stet Rhee gee re oe eh oe are □□ ‘ = VASE 5 aS oP ee Tea iene St) wie ee epee mee ae Bee ea 2 Bes i -% □□ SA EA □□□ eee eet Spee ae tarts Sapien get By ise os □□□□ ea iy eee Sa BEY cfg pte nS Nata oe eS si 8 □□□ FE Ce or Sra Fe i eS i eee Fw bi Ze te nese. Toth ed yr SiC Tepe □□□□ he ar eee Bis ‘ae Fie TE eo eo eee eerie Seb aed) Salt +» Bary Say eS CREEP □□□ .—-P el Ub, Leys = - Mie □□□ gee, ee RB Se Ra Bay EG ON. Se ee □ ee ee eer oe ig spi Ree are vy St)” OS wen ie □□□□□ □ □□ aetna te ERS ae ey es | ote ig gees Fe. oly REL Ay5at oat ey eS Sggpe ie etree ere Sines a Mee Teer, Be es ces meee Wise 0G Ge ee yes co 9 Se SYA UP Se. Ei rete te PETS NS CUES □□ □□□ □□ eer aS be ee a se ue ee ae ees) = fee ae □□ alte NE aes, St eT □□□ ee ee eet ee apa “PhS eA erties! erie Sect tener P= a ae ne AS 5 3, □□ □ PE SE ie Eee nee en ad ee ede 4 ie wees Se tas Saige ents BSF ees PEL Ste dat Pode ©] feast Pa Ae ite Sed ote eatithe □□□ Seve ta as uate, trai □□□ □ es □□□ aye eee = CE ee he ag = Magee i So ie. SSE Nye seagate: eae an □□□ me □ atest at ae gos cm Rae □□ eae > a eG amet page a ah fees iipeeeee erie te ne □□□ ee ieee sae □□□ □□ RT Edy 8 EE “a tes goat PEPE Phetsa BS □□ □□□□ Meee Rist) ae □□ te aa BOs ee NRE TE □□□ Deena Ae aes oo a5 : as the □ = ee ee ee wees homage matinee one! Atl TSS Meee. ee □□□ Sr ee oT ma +See Se we te □□ □ if eRe Ee wipe, ae eine ein SL ee pees seg) See aes See So. eal, Pee □□□ eo ge Fey on aes See ee MiGs so pn eats cae oe ra ee ee ces os, 2 te tata ot □ Sei vege ote og Gi sty es Bh at BOTS Reem OFS = fer. Sates Ra Peek peek 4 a RE mee seen en ee SSSR, SE ES Sa “2 "pt □□ □□ x id Pete ee oe ge ete ot Pe wae = a □□□ aoe vas way =e □□□ RSM Ne fill 1s ot Se Seas at □□ Ses □ 5 tee 2 Sc eased □□□□ □□□ | *; Trae ih ste ge ep ee ae ie ae cig tiers” BT FE pees, iyeic/ □□□□ ee ESS ies igh oe tae aes ae Adeae. Seite Geatn- afb esceme, Seg 2, Eee ET ie □□ Sis eu ack a See ie ee estes eS St PE eae eee oe SEES =a □□ ogee Sepik gee bee Relea Se ARE Pe UP ERS pO ag □ apg ogee er □ aiid cn emanate ee nee eee tues “os See fo, i Gute □□ od ee se hoger □□□ ea Seen. Specs ae aie pitas tio. ore Rea 255 pel Phe tec fer a= Pe yee Ron a ge eee eens Pratlsest ee. Siti ses PRG rat ye AEG Ss aS SPSS Seige fete ee ee racer Sere ania st 332° pang neta □□ Spates Le HF, □ 2 □ ER ete eee ee Ee Eg Hagia eet Ae etace en Bs Sec, ths □□□ □□ 3 ant au Sy > A eee ae es ii 3. 5% rite Ye TRS eat | = oi aes Vegeta | □ : . ie = 3 Fit Wate Siewe te ere ee seh. uel Sons at ate = tte cet Po ey 5 TR Re aber Spe □□□ □□ TZ fe “1 □ Tn Se Soweto gael tease es eS SL ee eg eee Te Spee Seen} ary Byes Ee bet 3 □□ reer ie ap wes aS qa cele ga, pethotreg Jar teke geeyt: Aaa gh Be Oe Cape ae he □□□ eee eer aoe MOR Ao gee ee ae □□□ a Ee Se : a □□ Se Seite □□ Ieee eae Nae snlgn GEO we eS aS Ba See BEE, Set ea toe 5 □□□□ □□□ □ □□□ ; : □□ 2 as Stig Ae ne eee ay tar one. + ue ie ee 1 rr =] tals gies □□□ □□ iw . que Tbe ge eee wees □□□ te teed a "eee i Pah ig sees pede ey py □□ □□ | BaegeG □ eee oe ee PR pe 5) se Sil Seed, 2 es, eed Pike PN PS EGE SE =. OEE □□□□ □ □□□ a Segoe te oe BEB oe Gees Steet oe te eles ee es og » weeds : Sg □□□ 23 a tl □□ Seep BOS, □□ PR ae Be □□ □□ □□ ts wai eS oe hd EN ei caer Se eee |e Se TE SE =: Sad - □□□ □□ fe estes oo aS Se ee or ot es oes Boe ete te gi=3 : == 2 =F Le □□□ Ae ate ad iat iz pee Figo ieee Pie Seti ee 2 speee ess bee “oF BEL €333) = - □□□ i rs 2 gil 00 Dagmar © Goh au i irda ee pA th git ou JE, > Sone eas eek oe 8 es Hees gee □□□ fe ES REE Be oo, ae = Beret caves □□ yao. Beale Seer eben cea Semen oak, □□ ere es ha SR ares: ; ' we ae h rept? wie Lay Ere Pea he te Uae ele Spe Te = * ey : oe ee = □ Bele “yee Bes | ee Remote ay ams a Bon eee 6 ine on oe : metas = tae es □□□ ane ; seal □□ □□ Tae ota" xe Se hous aoe ese NL ci bees: ye ey Us □□□ Pee Bet EE gl Rog Deeds OPM: peat am tre es ERIS aon os Oe eta (ir, Seren ye RiP SS nes Aggies Aare SR) te eI eee i Tae ine Fea ; es oer. □ ae he Boone toned ie Me Seal sage cats fe ma, ete □□□ A □□□ aa oo Sete □□ gene ee I Speeds tote a port a eee eee Wag. Gomi maga: ork Ne oneS we gies, pees 5 Te ee Heroez Satey, Seer, hl sc04 Takings Clee □□ ete Sh SEL, Dah raises Ot Mees? Sate ge a Pare ee oo ei ert 3 7 ee he Fee ee: a cards 2 eR a EOE TEE a Gee co A RET a fe POS So seal “a kang Wee ee ap yak Se Sask ee ? □ Ss oe ee “SS: Be favs bog geese pitas ee hed, } Une reas ae 2 ist □ te See A rage a ce, Sita ticul adhe geist es we SE eg fee 5 eter gis eee Re Sc. ARSE Sep ee ce ee pepe Es □□ me sho By peer eS fecat pagel se 7 4g: SPACE ee □□□ Btn □ □□□ 2 gare wn SPRY get ie Figo Po Be ger SoS ge 8 lene eee □ ro eS ee Pees Saga ae Poe NC on Sea ea eae nag es 3 oe □ Boho Sate = Sreseeee kee a wor Stee Siete ba ee ye a , am Melee A Fe □□□ □ igs ee en EB. a ee see a wigdncecgty aNGh Src oe ye B58 peas tegihtie ge aoe gS □□ □□ a, oe i 3 Rtg Sth aaa fee | dent oie Seg Peep ne 8 Te ta se □□ Recs □□□ □□ □□ gnbbing Dag ween ead 4s RS erga or ss a □□ SEO Ve ey gee Soe Steet "Mien ns, opt Ae ak sy a San SB Re 4 BO, ieee = - ee dea en Ys yoke Stor 5 jee ea ema he Site us Ae □ □□ □□ tess Wenge = See) et, aap Fifi tas Hae ip Wan (ed PENT Bet Sate □□□ ieee ek Sibi Cease Py 8 te eae fie □□□ □□□ aoodetitiearehia ee 8 ge on gy are GREE LIA A, SARE □□ hoe □□ Cert ee Sere aie ees ee ts mo □ □ ee ee ote we PROT NS RO Serta eS athe mie a ee = gee meee te Be ay we Ht a □ □ reise nae! re, ‘ete Se. ate es. mee Fooes lsjie ae ear . t ae = SAE APR a Saks Bh RET Ee ol ete “a - □ □□ □ Te Fv SS jin DT ee Bag fea gtk sunt 2b ag Bees Het sest See) Labs ets Pee ve Se © “2525 □ □□□□□□ 4% ee Te ea es “okt ee ae we. ze pe aver ee aa Dis Ah ee Mero, Ta as 4 pd Fate □□□ □□ Syiee □□ oe AEE fea: LS OE OR Re REY eee? Se ae eee = =i 5 ap □□□ □ Toe ta fe sah, ea Pe “Tae ipetew at oo eS SA eehciee, ahs fa LS a □□ □□□□ □□□ 5 RE Ea ee oe, □ sith ae os Pes ceo. hokey SRT Soy came DEE Stop gee mebte Lobe: □□ el sid eee gS ipivesi ue wit tase sie aetiees Se: SLNGS tS eres Re OP Set So) □ ee Secon Piss arr ee EA cals by □□ eens lies pees See eae Ce take ee ee we Fe Koe, ; gee Stags Pe Se eS □□□ Beet ae ae MC PUSS Wee mae ee Res ca 5 OS at a ae =P eaeSe epee Bela Ee ogre oe ol ate See rae i Ea ee es 25 SO SS Ses OS =! fn, □□ tuestiert □□□ □□ See oak Ha eat Spink ee Peg Soe ee SAS ee □□ Se phere □□□□□ □□□ □ es Sie marty ee Seiryy Selaees Tage So oe AS, BR TEPSnS, eater ge Too? Gao ws cote □□□ □ ait Pee 3 Se) SS Se OT eee vee SS.ot ee Bee ee a oe = day sie diy By ee ee = □ sens 2S pate ant ON Pee ape ed wey, LES SERS Le pe rena ys Sle tee te Ts ees ee ES Sed □□□ ae □□ □ : ee =: see ie ee. ee oe bg Aan eae og ee ARLE [Sis eee ai, ES Lira □□ □ She ae | jes BS pied Sees eee nel oem See? : Lee □□ □ □□ Ne oeeiewat Scr des Re Ses Ae Sere oe PARAS Stier Ee Lea aay mete os Se La A : ss □□ □□ Nga se! a raters ae Bey, oy hee A Spe es ee 2 Fs □□□□ ts A eat Be pte SE ee as San a at Stee Teg than ee ve □□□ □ □□□ - Be eh Fae RR ee 5 ee NS sstiahe) ne OES Re a ae alls 25 . 4 7 uses ENTS □□□ □ □□ □□ cere enti, a □□ Stat oe ype ee ee □□□ 5 : spree yg ny est PSE EN SR. ee □□□ □□ Be = S a, oe Sesto me as it Age US. = otis) ee ais Sal (mee Gad te kate ee □□□□□ as □□□ eh ee pe Eee fol ee a tee EE veo. > SAG. UT a Site ty yeah = SRS erg □□ □□□ pe AS Bed Ul, Be SS a Na Sir ey eee ee ee ai □□□ ow Be □□ aD Se te □□□ tee (ee NS ye ee eves gesgen SEO be sg a ; he See ee aes ! a ae ie toes og). ON ie □□ SEER Fo, Tati apt tt-* rae Ye ah ok ==. 2 eae Se odetl ey So%s Tree area reer it * Sh ees PASS UTEP TS □□□ □□ Pose mh Oo pe Maen ts eS re tse ghetas, rercagehnes ie) eee ch eerie. gee: Tgp peels es ge eRe aera □□ □□ rete Spe □□ soe aay a Lea aie aes fee ee “ti shiae hae pg ee ig a ieee Fee Sao ed eee Stas ALES MA eee EE te FET =k ie ee es etch SE cas Pee. eee pee BE) ae ale: Se ae ee Se a Se ae ee gee (iy Sage ee □□□ <2 Sy i : □ □□ eR Fathi = ipesymeh Ss pact 5 MA oe Be Ras ee Sede et □□□ | Sheen ear owes Nac nfal Ser) eet se ge weet se etl, SE SS Se See ea ae eee pea Py,g) weeps Bigaia □□ □□ ee eee) Meee eas Se ES sees, =a gS 2 gedaage viens £'4.a7e thts □□ □ □□□ Ol See wee ieee age HSER □□ □□□ Pa oie Se SE ABS eb □□ ee see gE A oe ng et atte eee Weal oaeaecde eee se! : i = =f; yeaa Re eee Seas BS Cnghht Pt ad = gf eae * mes a □ fe Be dope sea a eR ge es Mie So ee Tyee ' - AS i. SS Se cam ol reeeae ees Brasipes iis era : 7s, ray st i = Sis ae a, Pete □□□ | ye Be a ee AT ne ee ah ve) ee “te □□ nat a fe = Scene eweee □□□ Oe Ss: 3 ee Beet wee > wyatt a te baiae! Pepe” Busey ea = el Os cD eee ees & □□ □ 7 ie ie all.” aes | We A ee at oes* a iesewe fey eer Ta □□ □□□□ □□ 2 Set ely □□ Bole Se ease ile oa pe a Oe gaits act sakes ee ra em hes □□ □□□ □□□ Ber a eee Ee al Bi es Serr pee Senet ng Ts SR □ □□□ □□□ □ Bt whe Wwe, Bes Hee ao) ee Se Hipage □□□□□ □□ □□ □□ os uae □ se BPS TORE 2 oe ate a “. Soamity es ee Bee ee meer Bak. Thera) □□□ □□□□□□□□ □□ □□□ □□ a Paces a ee Te HEE. ote) ete ie Bh, ee” Eat a oar ERE Roy uae = = See et se Bes i

c. Counts II and III — Title VII and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act Count II is a Title VII discrimination and retaliation claim, and Count III is a Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”) claim. (ECF No. 48 at 58, 60.) Both are brought against only DPSCS and Morgan. (/d.) Defendants argue that Counts II and III should be dismissed as to Commissioner Morgan.*? The Court agrees, as maintaining the claims against Commissioner Morgan in his official capacity would be redundant. See Roberts v. Coffey, Civ. No. DKC 10-3359, 2012 WL 2000353, at *3 (D. Md. June 4, 2012) (“[MlJaintaining a Title VII suit against all three Defendants in their official capacities would be redundant because an official- capacity suit is tantamount to a suit against the state.”). Thus, these two claims survive only as to DSPCS. Defendants argue that the discriminatory failure to provide arms cards and failure to promote allegations must be dismissed. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding arms cards are limited to vague, conclusory allegations devoid of any factual support. Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he 40 West Defendants possess a degree of control over the arms card tests and lists anil exercise and/or conspire to exercise that control so as to deny promotions to POCs and immigrants and to grant arms cards to their own members,” and that “[t]he 40 West Defendants prevented and/or conspired to prevent POCs, and immigrants from obtaining arms cards at the same rate as Caucasian officers, while prioritizing ‘40 West’ members and Caucasian officers for arms card training which resulted in unequal treatment based on race and national origin.” (ECF No. 48 § 106, 107.) Further, none of the individual Plaintiffs

3 Defendants state that these claims should be dismissed against the “individual defendants.” (ECF No. 77 at 14-16.) However, these claims were brought only against Morgan and DPSCS.

allege that they applied for or were denied an arms card; in fact, none of the individual Plaintiffs make any allegations at all about arms cards—conclusory or not. (See id. {| 171-202.) Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding failure to promote are likewise vague and conclusory. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that “DPSCS fails to administer promotional tests on a regular basis, which has a disparate impact on other POCs, and immigrants, which is evidenced by the paucity of POCs holding ranks above CO I or CO II.” (/d. 4 93.) Plaintiffs do not explain how this infrequent administration of promotional tests is discriminatory. Moreover, not a single Plaintiff alleges that they sought a promotion. (See id. J§ 171-202.) The parties make hay regarding whether these claims are made under the McDonnell Douglas framework or the pattern and practice framework. Regardless of the framework, Plaintiff must still comply with the federal pleading standards. See EEOC v. PBM Graphics Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 334, 343 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“The Supreme Court has explained that . . . evidentiary standards [such as McDonnell Douglas and the Teamsters pattern-or-practice standard] are distinct from pleading requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b).”). And Plaintiffs’ vague and unsupported allegations do not raise a plausible inference that they were subjected to discrimination related to arms cards or promotions. Accordingly, Count II and III will be dismissed without prejudice insofar as they seek to bring discrimination claims premised on arms cards and promotions. D. Counts IV and V — Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights Plaintiffs brought a claim of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights against DPSCS and Morgan (Count IV), and the same claim against the 40 West Defendants (Count V). Defendants do not appear to seek the dismissal of Count IV against DPSCS and Morgan. However, as noted above, a claim against Morgan in his official capacity is a claim against the

□□ □□□ ! Mia sega eA EY oe □□□□□□ EES rae aoe fot we □□ See eee SEES Bite See i Tin! ; Pg ee SS a fae □□ eee □□□ Paes es By ap pes Hs” □□ □□□□ □□ oo Pte UP, Hot eee 3 1 ee ee gE eS Segue ey leas BESS, □□□ Mads a a es he Se aes Bice = ae □□ eat oe PRS a3 wT, Peet Selah chee geet ee a. eee pee □□ es Sate ia eR ee pee eee SEN oe gee seen □□□ Be Lee ee poy cae ee AS Ana ee eee ord cag eye: eo ee □□ AS □□ ee □□ x0 = ot eeere. of SEN Fi sneae ce i TeeCE sia pg ie Se ER SY Sete FS ee a 2 Fo + □ = 8 in weenie 5S ee oe sees EE EES a Steet Se cioae fa ae OR sling, □□□□ ts ae = eee ee diky pe aeare a ee Ret fOTESe “Eee SV laig SEE BET □□□□ □ Sa ees ges Be ett See eee get eee ee □□ Betapace fey Sd SANs = ‘hs [cae ie Se ee Seats gr aes, Bg ea Spi pada oa Sat es ody fo af OR es oe □□□ = □□□ eS Ean, □□□ woe Se a ie Sar Wie ae ees Sep Pe ee ce pear eee ee eee == iy □□□□□ □□ pa te eee Set LS BOA Puke at Tee Bete yo Sea tah Ss SEES fig free egies fies 2 2 = ateanes Res. os ae Ses rey etek ek 5 a ae pete Se age ae See FG 2 ge □□ □□ □□ ee □□□ ee eS ee fo ay ag □□□ □□ te (i: ek Behe aire ats eget os: mee Sere Boe et Sra, Eee Bee es Sy ae Ks □□ : = = at rd Ave (ate 3 De ke eee Seta REE We te Tied □□ Ae hey est Aas SSICE Ee ve □□□ □□ aS fee Se on ee Sar aoe ae cares ae pe ase Se HSE Lh a Eee SED pea □ ptsee □□□ □ Re ae Sey oe gee Ee ERSTE cigs ae i ep tes Te Soares ee =e Phone 2 ive □□□ □□ oe Saat gh, Laan seeenees catia ah ioe 2s eee orn ape pe a Ah eB pate: □ shat □□□ □□ ays aR ne eehany Weare Meee Sage EE oe a sR ae 22 Si in eae Yo siekeg ot NESE □□□ □□ Meats Gen Se ps SEES ae ASS See ea eR SAS ee □□ SNe □□□ fe ee aed “ia eed say yee eee □□ se a seer Po mene te Somers, Auate basse eae Gis se Se 2 EUR Jee □□ □ □ RES YS api ie BREE Ry fi! ae a □□ oe Fe oe Cth? ipes Hag ee eee = □□□ □□ □□ ae, eee ee ag: gee a fee. BRR GE a: ea Pe tae 3 □□□ ae Sa AS ae oP ee □□□ Bete Nee Reece te Het = x ao 2d □□□□ ¢ □□ □ i BP ie Be ee ay Se a ar ec □□□ aur Pa ees Peete. “ans Reeve Suk Best □□ □□□ taeda, Ne bee sa AR Shen 2 Shae ae Marsa FF = ees te ra as Sg Cathy ioe eee eS pe, ag ET A “SSS z □ □□ . epee Teer} SSS ifs er Pah, St ae eae oe eet aes wRSE AG os aoe “Se □□□ Save sr i □□□ eae. wae Sens ES Fate ae TEs na eee ee fe os ab ee Saane fee ae ae me Sr Ri Ps □□ □□ ee (one tt eee FURS BO Ae oe BE I ee 1 wi SAS he oe bats. east Sole Le Eee re po ae Sees Sg ae art os; hd Fi Jae 2 PRE he z shee. Sere nant site see ae TEE: (See aes Pee gee Spt ates Sees ot PUR GS ee 2 EG □□□ □□□ RRS Serta ese Se ee Spey. agigrass ABET 5 UES wc” □□ we Es Sa □□ Tete : 5 a! wees Me os UP screen SI oot RRR ee | 7, WA i oe te ao de ae Me Raabe gee eee Sie petunia ats se mS □□□□□□□□ | □□□ Beige ri sah. jee Ace Tans gots Zur BS i) BESTA □□□ □ ao geek Sea en ae a Pr eee ied Sat icles WE □ ee is os aes ee nc me Baar oe aeek tae en Page, SNE A Bee ere 4 □ as. EES aes Fert Sy Sip eae St ey os ayehs ane et ae fants Eee Ses = PE □□ □□ to Sig SEE st ae ae Are eh sa Pa ay tree eb Sh se aR ees ak Fae □□ □ Primes □□□ me Ve eva ene Reis ak ae age Re ee ce tg Boe Teta aa ke Sedbe □□ □□□ ee Bary: cee ete □□ the A APE a ee whee es ste fgets ha SS s2oe + at pve □□ = I gee ate Se SNS aa, □□ 2 a □□ □□□ ter fay Be cece an ey Seb eo Sees Saimeeye stn, □□□ ayy, Eye. wits A i oe jee, Sa see, 5a EO sete ee es eye piers i. Bs Sh els ee □ he SEE SOROS ue ee es Pats Sea foe ae PUR somiegts □ pte Sin a | □□ poy FOE ae □□□ Tee ped oe ee Wee ke Sage Seg =e es □□ es en ee a Nu 18 po gee “SRS Be ite ea See Toa: □□□ fe □ Se See fee eee se ROP oe =e ee ae Ee $e Be □□□ | □ ee Taig hae Sg ei ae =o gehen ewe ge peep ee BUY eta sor Se Ew: as fee a eee yee ee ie Pe lee Sn Ste ise 2 = tag ts a ES eI sho Ss Shas ente ohne □□ oe Eg eee □□□ Sag ee eee Be ie os ae: Pa ees ST Sh Be □□ pee ieee 2 Boe ee ieee SETS ee fe ot i a pe see, eee ese □□□ □□□ □□ eee sya lig oat □□□ Sha eats cee See Mise ee BP Pe een t ne ta pti 2 ee abe Se ge ee age oe Pea □□ Soo ee □□ □□ pet tee ee a oe Re este is apts Dee ae gat, fhe eee Kats Pe ees Beas GTS es □□□ □□ SChae aaeS Ss rie □ SES pee ge ee Dent soe a amr has Be Pepa oars 3 ee ee □□ RE □ □ ae, jaegth ee Te eee reys™ ieee Pee mireat de Aegean Sat ere □ □□ Pceenehse Se SS PE ee en ie □□□ abe: oat: □□ agit tye □□ cont Een ES bet es ores Sere ee Seek cae te is = ea ote Sees See a ee | St ott SS □□□□ □□□ ee ee a gig ee oe □□□ ene eee Phan eee. □□ relies UCR, Ree Fach i 23 See) 2s ae een Se ee oars = se ob aa a Sata ees Ee hat a □ PUL □□□ Sess eee segs sats Os te wes ipl? PPLE ate ar Sa Sates □□ ey Ae a= ety, 2 3 fea) Lr eS a St ty cnt eee eokgie = ie; hese a ai we 5 re : cast ST Me ee canes ten 4 roan clipe =. mira fouls Meaae tog ae sae asi oe FO □ yaks □□ tee Bee 1 epee epee cee a sagt, sais ES eS Weetegl ; Ta □□□□□□□□ Stone. Meee oe ees AL □□ ise, ae Peter ni RES □□□□ ey Paka” et lenge pire eS fy jee ee ee Se, Se anes ier ays rae Ee PF et boty . □□□ □□ ve □□ ie a 1 Set, soe me ee ae ee Eis irae eg fen, a eS □□ Sar SR te Ea Se ae re Bros, ce ae tore Mae ae = em ioe □□ 3 a ais ig Saeko Seater = By ee Spe se Se Geeta x a Pete Us fee □□□□ □□ = fjgins hg eh te ge Sees PROB BGR See oe pecs eee ae Peet ot Baie thie □□□□ □□□ Roce oe 8 fees ie wate ee TR” ae eee iy Ee □□ □□□ A wile bs TREES ay ee aa Sea Se, eae? Se eae nee wee PN ee ee □□□ □□ EO BERR i Teas. pier. hie ae ose Gee gubee Toe ay □ ya □□□ □□ □□□ APS = tire ae agen tom ate SIE Merde A come a ae +3 Se syne seg pat aE See □□□□□ □□ ER Mea = Fae es meeps han ee Ee eres, goo Fae “lees. ies sgh teh □ 8S spestthe Mis ote eta paeeteer Need hte be Sar Ns □□□ tas iy ie me □□ Hea opagn es 5 SpA SORES □□ □ □ = a age Peale tags ee $e ree ee ae Pa ee ay 2 a Sik oral aa h Bee ee = □□ □□ age eid BS dae Pee GE eg Bice ds “aa mane □□□ 35 Ei eae = af aes Tee Ee 2 eel □□ Sates Sa si ae S| age So Se tas ie 7) □□□□ □□□□□ ae Bee YON cok, goa wp □□ de BE gr) hess ss eels Se ee fee ed Soa OS □□ ea □□ te a: “oe Sree □□ pa Ae SS ee a Pts thle yl wee □□ = $2 * mee □□□ □□ □□□ □ ee tate ae ee ee a ee ROE □□ aS ee ipa Sia gee SARS einen EM: > foods, eran Bhs ay, Pee ae SpE cs, “gee See □□□ □□ □□ ee ted eee Bote eine □□ VAS SBD RS Ae BE Se Soe ra, Tp re eae □□ □ Ap □ Sees eae Bee thax oe Se ea. □□ at ee eae a Pe en Te se ae, : a parts □□□ Pie ges os caste Pe ies as foes eens BS poset vis. fee Rent ohh teas □□ gst ee 7 sealivet ie apt ge □□ eae aT Toe car See ane are tae Feces wea re ae Bec □□ □□ □□□ □□□ Rg □□□ i eee area whet Le A ete yore es Fees □□□ Ses? STS SRE os OFS epee ae jee ee a ee a incpenles GER) Apa NS i nee aN 2 □□ □□ a TSS eo Sevag ec Me ie er ee te st phan eaten os Fase ons Sees sxe ES “3-3 ofa 3 = Re eee Tera es So ees EA ee Suet Sete 2 □□□ ae mi ear ae □□ □□□ □□□ mie ee ph Et ed ee Swageg ingen □□□ ar vet ae poe est BR □□□ SS as je aes □□ □□ □□ See ie A ee ae eter ae Spl sat a Rie saie Se Fe, heady EE SES Ta tee □□ =F tar teehee Fines amen ee rie aera ptege tor dy ig, SE ee Ne oP □□ ly aie Bey ok Lae, cS ene get, 5 ores on gee, se "tel, Ssh oa ee □□ □□□ Shey «ae pees □□□ ak 18 eran 2 EE Sete ge ee aes seeteel | ens ai = rurpperym, ats She □ □□□□□□ ok Fis. Sd la Bi gael oe Pen veneer Bone, urea oe = Pa ernest □ ele me af hep: Lopes Be ee figs Bee ee Sige BOP ee ages oe spree iia Se "epee □ Ee Te hee 2 □□ FS Eee Be oie Song ae? ate □□□ eg es eee Aas □□ 4 □□ 2 ae AER Ty Se Nes gBte es Snes gett ete REM icp Sapien eee tape ue v; = a4 hay Sek = aes ae aS a eh aes □□□ ea pies ane af □□ ne ore □□□ □□ at Rae? □□ Pac ae aeRO oa so ES ee gee i □ 3 Fee □□□□□□ □□ Se er Fas SA Thee ee Vier Pel ert yon” Sage RR a □ ‘os Fill See Gale □ Sona ag fe Oe So oe ESR fee Ears anise ae, □□ Bea ede -aidpt □□ palma eye ek a □□ □□□ □□□ Tae Reng cane omee = gee 3 ae ae Bee ee | ee ae OS ae pS Es eS roe pen ab gree. ares sag Haar ee eat ae es ye a, i po Read Se ge. □□□ = □□ □□ □□ Papa a ee ore ae ee sigadyie ts es = ee ee vie ML □□ sarge [ret dee nas a eS ues Stes = oS eee see Soper esa gee Ss eg oy Be baa epee: □□ x gi hae, ae ae ge ates mele See aay sly a aie: igaoul gese ae Sle Sa when eas Be SE nes Be sees ee Se Pe th Bese ae Pah eee eae ties te wel ye, reer CRETE ge Eat oAS. (Page| oe Sera BS Se ey SLPS: Se © ew er et See ghey tee eet Free See ae fees! = eee ae □□□ ete Paige □□ aes Shetaat = □□ = □□□ aegis Stes. 2 = ee ees GERD ie See oe Bh □□□ aay aD zo aerate □□ □□□□□ Hee gees sf ge adele TREE aoe YSN = cieaee artic’ 5 eae □□ Seu ot igs atte eu eeby eae □□ ES SS Bee en a Be dir ge eeieaetes ee ast □□ □□□ □□□ Bene et Pe AA PES Ss ae Ss eines ahs Silesia Se see 2 po ae eed Soo = Bog □□□□ Reey □□ □□□ Ee Epes ie She fae ate ae Si ae pees 2 naeiee Aa Be mice = □□ panne 72778 □□ ee fee eee ah CRBs ease Re Rf ARMIES a Per eile ae TORE aS □□ = 3 obs tnhan re a □□□ Ne eee Suk 6g 3 ie eens ae “ee ey SS Anes". Bt epee ee □□□□□ Weer ke ae ee ge cg ws, Sah Pate ceBaedt <5 a a SET ae aL aS tagee gS tl sees RS, SE eet IS Bee ie Ae SSS □□□ a {tee eR ee ee wees APSE ane Protnte. oe Rh □□□ ute ea sypergera = RS Ea 3 TES sett a nae oh PoE vee | Mite ogee eee ef eile aro ty | ee □ ee sees ee titan anaes a Re Ne See se a Bae aaah ee os i 1. □ eR eS eae ee eee 2 ete rite = a ae Leer Pe ae dee 4 □ 13 oe Sipe 5 at pier ober ae + te. Spies pe Re, ae i Sethe ae) ~~ eo Sf uh Meat □□□ □□□□ fess Beret mitts ty ait ee ea “he: Seis st ee ib etic te os □□□ □□□□ Se oe, pale eS cette Ts aa ee Bay Stes pe gece Pag □□ tae et ee □□ □ Oi hee aye ree agate Mou ea SpE ha he ge See Senger “aE ae Lo teem oe IE Pease 235 tte ee es ips See 2 2) ost Bees ep are igen ey Sey pee EN Hae tere ras | airs es Edigig □□□ ee ies Se □□ ‘ aS vs oe Sues wee pice say □□□ Raa, ag feet oo a ro □□ me 4 PSEL □□ □ EE Seer So Ppee Reet aia? EE poe irate ee Ee cae. Se Pht, aloe Ag □□□ □□□□ oe ae mle od” gues fog iat RSs % ie peer ee = Raid) Ee ooh Fe aoe ee Bache’ Mee = ESTER □□ | □ = □□□ Re eae ee a SEFo tt ‘Sots ei Pets 3. Oy ae Sta, (SRE : □□□ □□ Be Ae t= sR pecs” feet ee a oe tae Sox nee oe iakeg Feeese me ee See ME a Bey oe □□ age □ □ The i ee SRE noe Ee Sis ches aS □□□ eee Be “tee □□ □ □□ > 2 eed easton ie tee es aaah. i fait. ae eee □ OSes er See Pee 23 BE ea □□□ □□ ee ag OM lip set gop aay sas eeYoeeaa iy oe ae ea eet on ee □□□ PE Ba □□□□□ eat Seg re TS nen ena Oeste Sees Geismar = Sater eee □□ Seq” "Sates Sn sun oe □□□ □□□□ □□□□□□ Sr ek Peel □□ egestas HS a a Beg Has isa □□□ sta epee ae = en □□ □□□ : Seg" SEER See) etait Ss Re ae Seeeeeie we oo ee geet te: as = A ay en □□□□□ □□□ □□□□□□ See fart Nise Si cy Sonam Se ee ae pee Re isin Se ee ae as, aie Pag ae = Weer □□ □□ ee See ete =o Se i oe 5 Ria. Ee mirnstt Sse ee 1 eS eeu ee yer aes Se a Se Fie eee ae ee SEI gn ey fy eS iete eS eee See i a tea) rae ea □□ Foo See eek fe = a Wiener ae St be ae wee note eens, fea 0 SES Paieog oe ee □□□ PASS | co seat TSS oo eet SPS ae Bt Feat Se eaters = “arse pe ye ihe «Sone sie a a we ict sea ony eet es 8 TS Sas a eee tee ee og eae □□□ ty gees spe Spee per oh RES oe meres

state, so naming Morgan and DPSCS is redundant, and the claim as to Morgan will be dismissed. Thus, Count IV survives only as to DPSCS. Moving on to Count V, Defendants argue that the individual Defendants. are entitled to qualified immunity.* However, “[a] state public official alleged to have violated Article 24, or any article of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Okwa v. Harper, 757 A.2d 118, 140 (Md. 2000); see also Middleton v. Koushall, Civ. No. ELH-20-3536, 2024 WL 1967816, at *38 n.24 (D. Md. May 3, 2024) (“[T]he federal doctrine of qualified immunity is not a defense to claims brought under the Maryland Declaration of Rights.”); B.N.S. by Stuart v. Brito, Civ. No. ELH-17-2670, 2018 WL 5830565, at *9 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2018) (“Qualified immunity .. . is not a defense to a claim brought under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights . . . Instead, a court may consider potentially applicable state law immunities, if raised as defenses.” (citations omitted)). Defendants next raise arguments pursuant to the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) with respect to the liability individual Defendants. Judge Hollander recently described immunity under the MTCA: [T]he MTCA provides that State personnel are immune from suit for any tortious act or omission that is within the scope of the public duties of the official and is made without malice or gross negligence, and for which the State has waived immunity. In that circumstance, the MTCA substitutes the liability of the State for the liability of the state employee. And in a precisely complementary provision, the MTCA waives the state’s immunity for tort actions brought in state court except where a tortious act or omission by state personnel is outside the scope of their public duties or made with malice or gross negligence. At issue in MTCA cases like this one, in other words, is not whether a person injured by tortious state action will have any remedy, but whether that remedy will * Defendants argue that the individual Defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity. It is not clear from Defendants’ Opposition on which claims Defendants seek qualified immunity, although Defendants explain in their Reply that they “are entitled to qualified immunity from the alleged State and federal constitutional violations.” (ECF No. 77 at 14.) Plaintiffs have not asserted any federal constitutional violations (at least none that the Court can discern); the Court will therefore discuss the issue of qualified immunity below in the context of the Maryland constitutional claims. 10

lie against a state official in his or her personal capacity or against the state itself. □ If State personnel defendants are entitled to statutory immunity, any claims against them are instead asserted against the State itself. If, however, the state personnel are not entitled to immunity under the statute, then the State is immune from liability for their conduct. State personnel are not immune from suit and liability in tort when the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges malice or gross negligence. Thus, compliance with the MTCA’s notice requirement is not necessary in a suit against individual State personnel in which it is sufficiently alleged that the defendants acted with malice or gross negligence. Indeed, the MITCA’s requirements have no effect on a plaintiff's claims against individual state employees. Francis v. Maryland, Civ. No. ELH-21-1365, 2023 WL 2456553, at *28 (D. Md. Mar. 10, 2023) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the individual Defendants acted with malice or gross negligence. The Court largely agrees, and will dismiss the claims against all of the Remaining 40 West Defendants, save for Defendant Durboraw. However, as noted below, the Court will require Plaintiffs to show cause why the claim should proceed against him. Plaintiffs’ allegations as to Bohrer are limited to allegations along the lines of: “Upon information and belief... Defendant Bohrer, MCTC’s Warden, [is] attempting to find excuses to terminate Plaintiffs’ employment and/or force them into an involuntary quit due to their complaints of discrimination against the 40 West Defendants and others.” (ECF No. 48 § 75.) With respect to Garlitz, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ allegations are that: On or about December 27, 2022, Plaintiff Grant was called by Defendant Garlitz into his office for a meeting. Captain Michael A. Cunningham . . . was present during this meeting. During this meeting, Plaintiff Grant was told that he would not be able to work overtime for the next 6 months because Defendant Garlitz gave him an unsatisfactory rating. When Plaintiff Grant questioned why he was receiving a rating and being denied the opportunity for overtime, he was told that it was because (1) other officers told Defendant Garlitz that Plaintiff Grant was not speaking about them in a nice way; (2) Plaintiff Grant continued to wear sneakers; and (3) other officers were mad at Plaintiff Grant for filing complaints regarding discriminatory treatment. 11

(/d. 158.b.) With respect to Warrenfeltz, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ allegations are as follows: On or about July 13 and 15 of 2022, Plaintiff Guy was passing through the metal detector at the entrance to the MCTC compound when Officer Billie Wheeler . . . told something which she could not hear to Lieutenant Dwayne Draper . . . on July 13 and to Lieutenant Thomas Warrenfeltz ... . Plaintiff Guy was then stopped by the respective Lieutenants on the respective dates and told to empty her water bottle or return it to her car because such material was not allowed in the compound. (Id. § 184.c.) As to Myers, the allegations are: After filing his Charge of Discrimination on or about September 8, 2022, on or about January 27, 2023, Plaintiff Bangura was called at approximately 11:48 PM by his Lieutenant Terry Myers . . . asking if he would be arriving at work for the 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM shift. Plaintiff Bangura told Lt. Myers that he would be arriving at work, but likely late by 15 to 30 minutes. Plaintiff Bangura arrived at MCTC for his shift at 12:25 AM. Plaintiff Bangura received a Level II reprimand for this delay, however, written policy is that a CO who is more than 30 minutes late will be considered “grossly late.” | 177.a.) With respect to Lohman, Plaintiffs allegations are that: In or about October 2021, Plaintiff Grant filed a complaint of discrimination against Defendant Durboraw for the September 7, 2021 incident. In retaliation, shortly thereafter, Plaintiff Grant was charged with violating the Standards of Conduct and Performance. When discussing this disciplinary charge with Defendant Lohman, Plaintiff Grant was told that he was “lucky” to still have his job.

On or about March 3, 2023, Plaintiff Bangura was called to Defendant Lohman’s office to discuss the January 27, 2023 incident. Defendant Lohman informed Plaintiff Bangura that he has already received other reprimands and that should he receive more he could receive a suspension and termination. Plaintiff Bangura understood these statements to be a threat to his employment with DPSCS. Plaintiff Bangura expressed his displeasure with this course of action and these statements and Defendant Lohman declared that he was being insubordinate. (/d. J 158.a., 177.b.) With respect to Kretzer, the entirety of Plaintiffs’ allegations are that, after Britto was yelled at by Durboraw, Kretzer “instructed Plaintiff Britto to leave which he did at that time” and that Plaintiff Bangura once reported unwarranted behavior by another officer to Kretzer. (Id. 168.a, 176.c.) With respect to Little, Plaintiffs allege only that “[s]hortly after Plaintiff Guy began her employment with DPSCS in or about March 2021, Plaintiff Guy overheard Sergeant 12

Brent E. Little . . . state that people like her should not be receiving overtime opportunities.” (/d. 184.a.) Plaintiff cannot seriously contend that any of the foregoing allegations support an inference of malice or gross negligence on the part of these Dalbudants, Further, not only do the allegations not support any inference of malice or gross negligence, it is difficult for the Court to comprehend how any of these alleged actions amount to a violation of Article 24. Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to rely on their vague allegations referencing all “40 West Defendants,” they may not do so. “A plaintiff must point to specific facts that raise an inference that the official’s actions were improperly motivated and the facts which make the act malicious must be alleged with some clarity and precision.” Francis, 2023 WL 2456553, at *32 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Indeed, “defendants are not fungible; the Court must examine what each is charged with doing or failing to do.” Jd. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The allegations against Defendant Durboraw are somewhat more concerning, given, for example, the allegation that he threw a chair at a Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 48 § 156.a.) The Court makes no conclusion as to whether this evidences malice or gross negligence, as Defendants have not carried their burden, given that they do not discuss Defendant Durboraw in sufficient detail. However, more critically, it is not clear to the Court how Defendant Durboraw’s actions amount to a violation of Article 24. Thus, Plaintiffs will be directed to show cause why the claims should not be dismissed against Durboraw, taking into account this Memorandum and Order. E. Count VII - 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Plaintiffs also brought Count VII, entitled “Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)” against the 40 West Defendants. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. The Court agrees, and the claim will be dismissed. 13

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) provides that: If two or more persons . . . conspire . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. “The law is well settled that to establish a sufficient cause of action for ‘conspiracy to deny equal protection of the laws’ under section 1985(3), a plaintiff must prove: (1) a conspiracy of two or more persons, (2) who are motivated by a specific class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus to (3) deprive the plaintiff of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all, (4) and which results in injury to the plaintiff as (5) a consequence of an overt act committed by the defendants in connection with the conspiracy.” Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1376 (4th Cir. 1995). Further, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs alleging conspiracy under Section 1985(3) must ‘plead specific facts in a nonconclusory fashion.” Davenport v. Maryland, 38 F. Supp. 3d 679, 692 (D. Md. 2014) (quoting Gooden v. Howard Cnty., Ma., 954 F.2d 960, 970 (4th Cir. 1992)). “It is not enough for a plaintiff to plead ‘allegations of parallel conduct’ by individuals because the plaintiff ‘must show an agreement or a meeting of the minds by defendants to violate the [plaintiff's] constitutional rights.*” La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Ross, 353 F. Supp. 3d 381, 397 (D. Md. 2018) (quoting Simmons, 47 F.3d at 1376). There are no non-conclusory allegations that the Remaining 40 West Defendants—or indeed any Defendants—had an agreement or meeting of the minds, and nothing in the Amended Complaint leads to a plausible inference that there was a conspiracy or concerted action by the Remaining 40 West Defendants. Furthermore, the crux of Plaintiffs’ claims is employment discrimination and retaliation. Thus, their § 1985(3) claim is foreclosed by Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (1979). There, the Supreme Court held that “deprivation of a right 14

te tn oe se me □ wee □□□ □□ a TS See Me an en ee Me a at a "Se gine □ eS □ rose tr FPS re ie ee ee ee a et Ree ee “este Lhe eee = S oes □□ = Se a a nS = SS eee ee nee aa, epleereeee, Ae □ he nme fee Se Fo Oy i □□□□□□□ ' figs SE ae Petey TRS me seein =, SR ees ke at Se ee | 20h □ te Ske BE “pct ge et yee cigs ea ee ee fA tee Sees eS Sei □□ 1 □□□ □□□□ □□□ □□□ □□ Atiee eee Oe ening Fpeeae ae ah eth Readies tae aaa Beg Ste oe ee □□ □□ pe TREE aoe A vt te □□ po saa aiae sie ote oS see A oe iba oe peat See ye BF □□ Ee, fone Beare ue □□□ Si su’, Tee Meth 25 cB Pees ey BRR A es □□□ en oe el 56 6 □□□ □ OW "SSE ee ee a St ea ee eee Went mee Peres phar Eg eee □ IST a Siu 4 erie Seg Zeist Tet Gee it ee Re aaa Oe ste 3 iese (SF = BORO □□ □□□ □□ ae BSS gS Sessa oe Be SEES ere ty Se eee oe eS ee ae eee Fe 2G Sh | ae tEANS te □□□ Vos Sete ig Pe roe fe Se get Nes DRE sree HES a re ects eens Sys | as te Bes Ma Soe oe 2 re yp eS ee al Ra eee Ee oe hale mage os Siwioss Sec Te et SOE es ~ te me: . opt oS tot □□ peat g 7 ae Sg Ee hg Ee Se apie: Steet Svat ag eee te Ri eee ag oes ete os BY eg eae □□ □ □ SS St ies econ a leeds Geer es Sit Tromege 0 Mee, ttc wa Saeed Sheen age ree aes 2a eas ee Pees eS ERS □□□ PS er Si a fae seme Fe re ie efor □□□ □□□ oe Se Bo Re SAP Ie 2 Sree □ □□□ □□ teas ig th ore eae Sa Ser SE eae pe Rg rns Ge oF Le kpos Necrprs Gilt Wel oe □ Pee ait □□□ ge See = Be peptides ng A hie ee oss Es ws eet ts ee prt Ai □□ □□ □□□ hs er at, ra Veeighy hot ee eee Hs □□ ae oe ee ers ee) eget ce Be ee □□□ □ □□ aes SRE ee Bee ee Ee ae eS Se ee eg es see Noth wat 05 or RPE ON □□□ = owe re ee one ee Go eee. ope ee eae “eed PRN Scene Be RRS ekg IR penne © □□□ □□ REIT ie ee ss Seas □□□ Seek parent les □□□ □□ □ AS goer ante acre = Ries MAGE ee a eee ete Pe po Re eg, ea ar tartan ae □□ lee aay Bes She eT □□ □□ SP Sagi sen, Get eae iiooe Sass Seen See eee ere ee □□ Wes ques □□ □□ □□ □□□□ □□□ Die UE ee Pes Ee PS Re es AURIS pea BS □ □ ae Ae a Pe BE See cheers eee ea igeo ret La eae RHEE gle □□□ □□□□□ Sac ih cate EE sks AR Se eh atte iPS eee et Satan a eee ce □□ ee a et eons = 7 □□□ ee ges i ee ar, | ree ee ee eee MET ger ace, □ □□□□□ treet CE Rep Rie A gs BERS Syd age eee Be ga Sit ols gia Se Cie BAP □□ □□ pe □□□ ed OD, Oped Ae oe Sm) Sees ailals Atte hae aie □□□ aaa ees Se gee pe □□ get Peet ee a co Fe Eb □□□ □□□ gh □□□ UR na ae ek te soya eas, ae ag se ay, eral nati eppte TH ee A ETAT Sees eer. gases Gt op Wea He eae Se ee Ptigot ane Sram since ends = (ON Seee he □□ 2 i oe ger eee, Pie St rae ten eat ee ah ign a ti ee gS Bi hick ees □□□□□ □□□□ □□□ □□□□ Nae eee Sera iS et ee en ee ei. er ae e.g ‘et ic Rs fone □□□ □□□ □□ □□□ tas | RE oe seen oa act Desa eS Se oat aa Rae fe eee eS pe (aie Se Ty Ag gates! □□ □□□ eed EY ere TS jigetes ae eee Rah ei eae eee Ss ee ee □ □□□ es 18 TRAE aa Aes Pappa as ee a Ry Me AER Gata □□ □□ Pacee Saas ee Seep BEE See eee Resp se ert na=* eg ee S02 □ Oe □□ □□ f= SWIC, Diy eee □ feo oS epee ie ieee 2 LE oo ee BE Nee == eae es ae ee) oS al ny ae Saas. = ape seas mets eae oe a Roa □□□ fee or yeah pai: = wet ped □□ duet by Ga □□□□□ □ 8 Le RES eerie ary ie Gh. ete. ga tere ep Deke fears agi May se eee □□□ Hales wea ae ARE AORN RP ER Ga ae ye eee Sat bee ins We POETS EN cite eed Sion Oe beste Ea a SN eg wet eee, = seeding □□□ □□ eS) ie INS geie re ae ar SM as eee Ie ete Be Poko teat WB SR □□ □□□□ iy Ws ee sie ichmett □ ap pemeg ate Seer ae Sey Se Romesh gps Reel oe ne soot ge SS ee SL <5 iy agen □□ □□ □□□ □□ : Sy a Sh eee es see oe, Ser ee Ge Stee tober safe Ny □□□ oe ee oly □□□ □□□ □□□ □ □□ ce eS gree ate ethan eee ee rae ine essing Ta rvig's ees Bian Viigo 1 EP PAGS □□ □□ □□ i Bere hy Arde Ee maser: (ieee: 2 ee alae =e cag | oe “eee TR Ee □□ □□ NE aa ee eens pee Se ee yd ble hg. 2, a ee □□□ □ EPs eg eee ee ey Gave gga gts SES ih rapegr ain ie wr Me sete □□ □□ □□ Bes age TEA a cakes ries! ae wag y Re a het ae gS Si Bua □□ □□□ iis ee BS □□ gies Say ek gc Ge mes PE a gh Ee Arata ae ee ae □□□ ia cor Tega es □□ Tage ue pctge gn ts agoat □□ Seas SS Satire Meds op eae he Nee Ae £ rE □□□□ □□ Ses ort Pets cab? uaety adie Eee Me □□□ ieee, See st ge a ie ee a te ta SRE Br Ph Ags Cae RS de Lene On □□□ ee ogee ee i. bees 2. "8 Ke □ Fy ee ee Bere PS BS eee ae ig 8 Bee co te 3 és eee eae ee ae Tig □□□□ □□□□ Saree elie, Wey SS Gh BE ai es ee TES ate nits TA atl Seas if te SS ig eas St a3 {gt □□□ □□ Be Weel. fe ete eect et el a mapa Bete a aha ee tap oy it We gee le jr ebay ho gee vee □□ giana ao int ame atimt Ss gg FP eo So gy EAT Cee □□ RET PORT goal Pee SA? Dee a ees ee □□ erga ree Gn eee Fee eel ae. pee ee Be Ser eee eee os Sa, □□ □□□ aD A ee * ee peed Oe Meee eee a gt le ee □□□ SS Sse cee ae ob tae oe at □□ Sali □□ REE See BA □□□ PES 2 Pouce ge ae ie fe fs □□□ pg eo ee Uke Scape ie ak Teng fed ee eae eat 3S es ae ae = Re ae □□□□ □□ □□ □□□□ = aE ee □□ □□□ tea, nese ea oe ‘Deel Ne Babes ho BEN per? ar I ee BE Bec SS □ □□□□□□ □ □□ □□□□□ wade □□□ eee Me Fetch pepe Pte a eS agree ee eee Se atte! Be a= “aise □□□ □□□ eter sone a eae eas ioe) yee ee ae eee Sa □ Ryden Sn : ag □□□□□ □□ □ □□ teagte 2 et EAS rs | gi ieee ay ted ie ea! Bp ees ate Sg ae ET a) EG □□ etitis Be □□□□□□ □□□ rea Wipe ae eee nt Saat a, aed age cough a a ore □□ ye AOA ae ea Tare Pee OS Ren □□□ eae fog Teens Sete Sis Si fess : are = □□□ ty ete tte Mee ee no SP AUST Bio aw nee Pea ley Siete ee ee TAR we □□ □□□ □□□□ Secon Jase gas eee □□ sae. □□ Gels □□□ Se gS iene airigikes tee □□□ oe ee Ty a SEBeE 2 ect ei ee □□□ R SRE a oe ae FORRUGEE PR Set < □□ ian □ a Siege hat oo ite 2 EEG wee cana greet ny ierae: She ih Sas rier eer SOON Thad 2 Se □□ □ “if Wats age Alte reaver 2 Men pe elneaay mes BPN eo memes geen get 2 eee ee Ce eS ee ey ee □□□□ = □□□□□ Pe re eS a TO Re ee fof esses ee igs et een EN = Vago Sig au, □□□ Se ENS a RAS a 9 NE dees! □ oes, Boe pe ge ee Bees eee et ee Nek ag Side □□□□ ee kA a Ma GF SR ts 6 ont te epee RAS eae he end. Pp og ee ei □□ ilinipinnsisld hose iced’ Se Ig natn ate a Te Seek agate dada Fabby oa dees oy eee sy, ho Pigg ENB Mere, cue Fe ae” □□ ete 8 □□□ “er Sat □□ □□ = □□□ ae eee cota □□□ TOPE Ree ee es cls ee Aaaes ty yy PEs □□ □□□□ Pg □□ pri RTT ESR PP A A pee NEO ein. fou Peo es et eo ee □□ □ eet tAapac Th SSPE ae tg i es Pa pacts Woche Eee on Ue □□ Rl ee tir See Gitte ink BS per eee Ser? op. ere ata ete sages Vigo” meeps eats eee gee LS Se BREE sei Da ea ees © awe FS ee □ □ Sige ge) esl pista ee □□□ RSS eo one gh Ge a er rae Teer ore EPR OT et See re we eiee~ MER Seger Pe i Soe □□□ □□ □ OR, Ia □□ eno ee ee fn ERs te SER MT a aie □□ SPEEA Sac ot Re Fag «gc ae eae ges Sa eee ee ee eee ee Be □□□ □□ | Ae See pose Petes iets et Silene ara ey Niger we □□□ ae Ua an ere ia Shei phis □□□ □□ hy, mine □□□ Re apn Fete □□□ Need cae 5 ees ie ae eget ST: ROR hy a SEE SFT HE □□□ □□ igo ee 2s BE eh PG seers eee Teens Re Seared ie eee □□□□ □□ □□ APS ae URES BGG, OF as oe Mote te We Sea eee □□ ey Ff heey □□□ ™“ eaten eo □ Ae were tae □ ae ai ye Pee ee pears ited gh Sat weg Sean sth ae □□□□□ □□ ge Pee Seep eee ei es ee = eo ae Poe tes ee See ee □ □□□□ □ Edad - were | Sota Boag (ex SRtre. Sestrse 7 femal be Se Te AS oy Opeth pie ed Seopa 7 = hese” Sige SS ihe Se MESS ediee Seiden Se eh tht, , SEF □□□ □□□□ ee aes Sra : JE Se yp aan Te ee □□ ta es ee eae poet ie By ie os ata oo gel Se RF □□ □□□□□ □□ gee ts = eee ee get p RECS) cist ye Pe : 1h = pete oh ie soba SO hie ee a caver =: eA gs Vegeet al ee eee eye 2 ae ee ee ae PR Sat Boek □□□□ □ Ss ie ere iets agi Seance 2 ele, 2 ee ce □□

created by Title VII cannot be the basis for a cause of action under § 1985(3).” Jd. at 378; see also Davenport, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 692 (explaining that where “the essence” of a claim is employment discrimination, Novotny forecloses a § 1985(3) claim).° Thus, this claim fails and must be dismissed. F. Counts VIII and IX — Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act Plaintiffs bring Count VIII, which asserts a RICO claim against the 40 West Defendants, and Count IX, which asserts a RICO conspiracy claim against the 40 West Defendants. These claims will be dismissed. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), it is unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise” in interstate or foreign commerce “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity[.]” “Racketeering activity is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), as ‘any act which is indictable’ under a number of enumerated criminal provisions[.]” Chambers v. King Buick GMC, LLC, 43 F. Supp. 3d 575, 592 (D. Md. 2014). This includes “any act or threat involving . . . dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year” and “any act which is indictable” under several provisions of title 18 of the United States Code, including 18 U.S.C. § 1512, relating to tempering with a witness, victim, or informant, and 18 U.S.C. § 1343, relating to wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). “To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” AMA Sys., LLC v. 3B Tech, Inc., Civ

° Although Plaintiffs state—without elaboration—that their claims “are not improperly predicated on Title VII violations alone but are grounded in broader constitutional and statutory violations” (ECF No. 71 at 58), they also appear to concede, if unintentionally, that employment-related discrimination and retaliation are the core of the case. (See ECF No. 71 at 10 (“The Plaintiffs have brought this case based on systemic race discrimination, hostile work environment, and disparate discipline under Title VII and Maryland law.”).) 15

No. DLB-21-1472, 2022 WL 2133905, at *3 (D. Md. June 14, 2022) (citing Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)). In addition, “to plead a pattern of racketeering activity, a plaintiff must allege (1) a minimum of two acts of racketeering activity occurring within ten years, (2) which are related, and (3) which amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” So/ v. M&T Bank, 713 F. Supp. 3d 89, 101 (D. Md. 2024) (citation and internal quotations omitted). And, “to establish the existence of racketeering activity, [a plaintiff] must adequately plead the elements of [the] predicate acts.” Kimberlin v. Hunton & Williams LLP, Civ. No. GJH-15-723, 2016 WL 1270982, at *7 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2016), aff'd, 671 F. App'x 127 (4th Cir. 2016). The Court is mindful that “[a]ttention to the nature of the underlying offenses is necessary because the heightened civil and criminal penalties of RICO are reserved for schemes whose scope and persistence set them above the routine.” HMK Corp. v. Walsey, 828 F.2d 1071, 1074 (4th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs base their RICO claims on eight predicate acts. Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege any of the predicate acts. The Court takes each in turn. 1. State Law Predicates Plaintiffs allege five predicate acts based upon state law: a. Delivering contraband to a person detained and/or confined in MCTC in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-412(a)(1); b. Possessing contraband with intent to deliver it to a person detained and/or confined in MCTC in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-412(a)(2); c. Knowingly possessing contraband in MCTC in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-412(a)(3); d. Delivering a controlled dangerous substance to a person detained or confined in MCTC in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-416(a)(1); [and] e. Possessing a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to deliver it to a person detained and/or confined in MCTC in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-416(a)(2)[.] (ECF No. 48 § 150.) 16

Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege the predicate acts. The entirety of Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Court has identified that relate to alleged contraband and controlled substances are as follows: Further, the 40 West Defendants have been known to smuggle contraband (i.e., tobacco) into MCTC for both personal use and sale to inmates... . Caucasian officers, including the 40 West Defendants and other members of ‘40 West’, have also been observed bringing contraband, such as food and tobacco, into the workplace .... The 40 West Defendants further entangle the enterprise in interstate commerce through its continuing pattern of racketeering activity, including, but not limited to, the distribution of contraband, such as tobacco and controlled substances, throughout the MCTC compound which was gained through the stream of interstate commerce.... The 40 West Defendants agreed to and did conduct and participate in the conduct of the DPSCS and MCTC Enterprises’ affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of smuggling and/or selling contraband in MCTC, retaliating against Plaintiffs and RICO Plaintiffs for their participation in a protected activity, and intentionally defrauding Plaintiffs and RICO Plaintiffs, including, inter alia: . .. smuggling contraband, including tobacco, into MCTC and/or selling contraband, including tobacco, in MCTC[.] (ECF No. 48 □□ 50, 74.b, 149, 297.) This falls far short of the requirement that a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Under this plausibility standard, a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” in order to survive a motion to dismiss. /d. at 545. Plaintiffs’ allegations do not even amount to a

° With respect to the first three state crimes relating to contraband, Defendants also argue that these do not fall within the types of offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). As noted above, the enumerated offenses include “any act . . . dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Defendants argue that because the Maryland laws relate to contraband—as opposed to a controlled substance or listed chemical—these crimes cannot be predicate acts. Plaintiffs argue that “contraband,” as that term is defined under Maryland law, includes “controlled dangerous substances.” (ECF No. 71 at 52-53 (citing Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-410(c)).) The Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants—particularly where, as here, Plaintiffs allege that the alleged contraband includes tobacco and food, which are plainly not controlled dangerous substances. However, neither party has cited authority for their proposition, and the Court need not reach the issue to dismiss the state-law- predicate RICO claims. 17

formulaic recitation of the elements. And, there are quite literally no factual details at all about the alleged smuggling of controlled dangerous substances. Here, in short, Plaintiffs fail to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547. Accordingly, the RICO claims fails as to these purported predicate acts. 2. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 Plaintiffs allege two predicate acts pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1512: f. Knowingly using and/or attempting to use intimidation, threats, corrupt persuasion, and/or misleading conduct with the intent to influence, delay, and/or prevent the testimony of Plaintiffs and others in official proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1); [and] ; g. Intentionally harassing Plaintiffs and thereby hindering, delaying, preventing, and/or dissuading Plaintiffs from attending and/or testifying in an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)(1)[.] (ECF No. 48 § 150.) 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) prohibits using intimidation or threats with the intent to “influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding,” and 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)(1) prohibits “intentionally harass[ing] another person and thereby hinder[ing], delay[ing], prevent[ing], or dissuad[ing] any person from,” infer alia, “attending or testifying in an official proceeding.” Defendants argue that the allegations in the Amended Complaint do not raise an inference of a violation of these provisions. The Court agrees. Once again, Plaintiffs fall short of stating a claim. Plaintiffs point to the following allegations in support of their argument that they have sufficiently stated a claim: After filing his Charge of Discrimination on or about September 8, 2022, on or about January 27, 2023, Plaintiff Bangura was called at approximately 11:48 PM by his Lieutenant Terry Myers... asking if he would be arriving at work for the 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM shift. Plaintiff Bangura told Lt. Myers that he would be arriving at work, but likely late by 15 to 30 minutes. Plaintiff Bangura arrived at MCTC for his shift at 12:25 AM. Plaintiff Bangura received a Level II reprimand for this delay,-however, written policy is that a CO who is more than 30 minutes late will be considered “grossly late”... .

After filing her Charge of Discrimination on or about September 8, 2022, on or about September 27, 2022, an investigation was opened pursuant to a materially false report that Plaintiff Guy was delivering contraband to inmates at the facility .... After filing her Charge of Discrimination on or about September 8, 2022, in or about October 2022, Plaintiff Lovelace was approached by Officer Bradley Deshong .. . and Officer Scott Blankley ... in or near HU #5. Ofcs. Deshong and Blankley told Plaintiff Lovelace that she was causing trouble and Plaintiff Lovelace told them that she was not and disengaged from the encounter. (ECF No. 48 177.a., 185.a., 195.a.) This is insufficient. Even assuming that an EEOC proceeding is an official proceeding, the Court cannot find it plausible, based upon these allegations, that there has been a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) or (d)(2). There are no allegations relating to intent, and there are no allegations at all regarding attending an official proceeding, or the provision of testimony at an official proceeding. In short, nothing in Plaintiffs’ allegations suggest that they were prevented or dissuaded from attending an EEOC hearing or testifying before the EEOC. Furthermore, a “pattern of racketeering activity” requires “at least two acts of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). And, “[w]hile a minimum of two predicate acts is required, two acts alone do not necessarily establish a pattern.” GE Inv. Priv. Placement Partners II v. Parker, 247 F.3d 543, 549 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Sedima v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14 (1985).) Nothing in the above-quoted passages raises the inference of a “pattern” of activity. See id. (“To establish a pattern of racketeering activity, the plaintiff must show that the predicate acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).) In addition, “[w]hile there is no bright-line rule as to the amount of time the fraudulent activity must last to warrant a RICO violation, this Court and the Fourth Circuit have suggested that a period of two years is insufficient.” So/, 713 F. Supp. 3d at 103 (citing Parker, 247 F.3d at 550; United States v. Pinson, 860 F.3d 152, 163 (4th Cir. 2017)). Here, the only dates the Court 19

□□ EO ee at ie a Sant eek □□□□ □□□ □ Sec’ hohe ‘mon: te” □□□ sal ies team t= too tied 5 eS □□ ey □□ Sp 8 ot eee OP □□ ar og Be si epee roe So SEE ee □□ □□ eee mere br ogee bo: sti ote eg | ee □□ eee Reus Tessin ae □□□ caenet □ □□□ ee mes Pe □□ Myo rag = Se ge fo cae ee ag fe roe peri eae of Ok oat So □□□□ □□ □□□ ae Soe, ee PS | ee et fii es ob ag wee peegi's Happ eee Aen cig, Soke oie ply □□ □□□□ a | □□ Aon ss. SF gfe, JES eo eee stra eae et Mises ut eae ae. ee 4 Boe ss trees ee es ae tes | Boome pstet □□ ONE oe ee SERIE □□ ee Be ee □□□ □□□ Wines |S gee pes eae npr fe RROR Se cotter ene Logins eae □□ □□ ee eae □□ = ie Se fet SAB i wea Sara Saget en ree soe ff ea a “Ee wo = Star □□□□ □□ □□ arate. Re ERE eel ase ae Sees a eee □□□ aN Sits FS eRe eR eS Sass □□□ RS ee wey softy = Neg eR ancy ae, egdl ae □□□ a ae Bite Sas SS et ne SERS: 353 Gee! ate eS ees ee Spee et ea ee ae □□ □□ Tage Sass SHEE PROSE cut ites oe Sa ee Fae ae she a tf Shei Pease aaa? □□ Cea ae tar dere a popper aos ite doe. BH □□ ee. Se haan □□ □□ AS □□□ “ro AES ee ete cae Steet Fo eet tt Keena □□□ See. Pei tia, “SS. eee ee re fee Se □□□□□ □□ □□□□ ee shpag Ses Fe SUE gece oes ects) ee ea eS, ce aes Le ee □□ = 2 z 2 a 7 □□ Bee eae ea sae eae ee ed age! = See a 2 Big □□□ pee. □□□ per Sage Se Se pe a ee ACRE aa eats, Feces. oS □□ Pale □□□□ ee a ao pee Spies at Piiuge Sees = Sie ema of ao ie = ace eke pp suet Bo □□ eae ee Thais tae oe eae ee ieee ee ete phe to ages “Sept Se ES Gee os □□ 28 raet SRE etn! eas Stag Pespcear te spear RS Bs 5 % sa sae eae Tee. BS ay Se □□□□ □□□ □□ tee ge RR ie ea a eat Hae fi see ere Se eres ee Rone. ea fg □□ □□ sheet ae ee Le eee MAS eG eae Sees ae ty as a easy eo ee ast a Ree DSi : | a ee PP nc sgh te Fe hs Se eae | sae ae Seay puis eee ee oe eas go ee eats □ i oe Yaeg SE Bers ye gee sees Pees ee Pg ri □□ Be □ PS mt oe eee □□ □□□ Bes ee a ge AS te gus. grey ae aoe! “Ss Se Sikiges She Bie pS There Ae lage □□ Le eases) Sea ieee ee Se Rope gt ee Some pre pegs □□ □ □ □□ oe. Se aap Sig esa ee, Seep iy Pe Seer Aas Ntgte Eiest ns ot ye Sinks EU Tad ie gokaaet iy □ ae eas Seopa Ieee 7s □□ tase □□ Pie carey ie Sper pers ae hh Sa ea te! □□ ene, Eee ee SO oi ge age os Se oe axes So Hie ag og pute peat: ROWE ISS □□□ ASAE eee Dette rae = □□□ ye □ Serie 4. eeeaseyt aa Son 3 hes ghires Ng □□ ar ee ‘a cel eee. as se Bisispey | eB zee aid? Sef □□□ □□□ sa oe koe □□□ Seereees eo Pyle eee eS, □□□ Ay Boia ae St es a ee Ee □□□ □□□ □□□ □□ i Soult a pe Feaiy ace ee I ig nese Pee Pia Leap tee ee ego). PS eas NRE Bee gue ek 2 □□ □□ ees ee SR ah □□□ SESE ee Beeb SO ee Steerer oie Se Fotae Seti □□□ rae Sapa STR toy er ee eee = sees eeue ae ede he ee BS ee i Pe alae Se one Bog a ‘th GES a □□ oe a Be ee 2 Eee ieee eter AEs ee ace eae on spohee Pay Eee ae op Be a DS Ses □□ □□□ Tease SHEE ware Wee ate gt eter eet fcck □□□ eee eRe ey a ae fre ea vs □□ □□ □ □ RES eo i □□ AOE Re aE BRS SE rae eee econ ee ee ete Bs □ Seay □□□□ □ igs cn ae ies feet ian eae catia a= Gs eet ae Sephe Taeee be: St □□ hag eet | ae £7 □□□ □□ □ ene ee eke a Lei A See RS, fiat SUS ths Bes tee ta te Sore ie eae ete. VE SITES □ aE aS ees fiat gine ge ee ie: (ise cn Ta ok ee Hitless □□□□ □□ ie a ee ete ge Futes ie ae ep Fae □□□ SS ee es Sere ee the, Sas ae sages □ tis ok SREP Ti! ng Bi a □□ Se ge eel eR ee ea: 33 3a mye Coe □□ □□ 4 St SORE. tee pee be, Pe Se Paes pu Suey “Pa leer net en eee eB Sate □□□ fis exegeee Syste □□ ky eee artes i= Sa et, Pee at ale eh) eh ers, showin, WSs Ret da Rest □ jy HRT □□□□ ES Sie) aot □□ ere eee ee ee WOG REEL Sele aciteies. ae eee thee: sae Pipes DE Ste ogee et AEE apes gets fee ea oe eae. eat ie G fee. Ga fate ee ge piste at cae Seria pein > me ne a □□ eas tities farses aeoethy Faye au we A ota ere or es see Se er eee gt ap Je □□□□ Se Pere ee Hebe age TEN ee ae Bees Sie Mg ae □□□ et ‘met ae pe HS ees □□□□ aa eo” Fe Red ee ee te FE Tate amas a mea Biceps at % ghia pat poked ce rs Pe ch □ : ees cs Bet Le eke aes Later aseriyses 206i BEES, Bite ee ces puree 2 Ape el Sa □□ □ □□ □□ cine Sate ree a ee oe ee See peri ee: Reape dade ese Sat: ects, See □□ □□□ □□□ pepe Or aig Rute pet Ble San □□□ ee ee i ee ieee ss aE BP Fis” | See eeugee □□ □□ □□ 3 “Re Be □ Bee ge ihe Re Sv sear Tee re hee, Shae ERS Sess as et riage □□□□ □□□□ ee eran 2 EP RR SN ee ee ihe nate Peace eupey per eee □ at Sy Da te eee Se. pate oR fee Sneg ee OL Sacer ype □ | cee eine hea: SS □□□ po See ee eee que ae aaa Vite ee. PE es "sat FE □□ Si pitt oes ge oe pe te TEL VD oe eel Leki VERE Saye ts OES) | □□□ cy ee gir ee go ee Bee Sues Snot ae oS □□ □□□ 4 SES ghd tae Ree ees eee Sti Pag A fees “ah See □ □□□□ : AS gt See ae eras he Pe eres pee cogetne “cmepeee peek, te eS Ue ree ea □□□ The oo et teateee □□□□ □□□□ □□□□ zoe 8 Paes eer Woes seliae Uhaes □ □□ eS Ze eee REE hs) Be gai. Eo eee TS □□ □□ PE od ee ne □□□ Se Seen en eae a ieisalse. 3 □□□ ners ares. ete Eis’ Bee tae □□□ □□ □□□ Be SE ag! a, See 1 eg ee Ree Pets He ee | Be OSS cet ee ie ee Ps ogee fn □□□ □□ □□ □□ tee Eras ne ee ge Deeg net Seas SoS eRe Te ee eee Se! □□ ae ie Fa ose □ □ □ Mages Ags □□ er ek ee □□□ Se oe PA oar See ees ca a “ue □□ □□ □ Bp BLAS gO a eR EN BBE Ee bee eT = eeu □□ ones Pe : oh ee Spo gees, aise Maha Ae fe (es = Se gE ele ec eee □□ □□ □□ aotarees See Hae See Vide penne Pt aS a See Fe SA AS Eee ee ake eS Se ee See □□□ □□ □□□□ eee eee A ae Ey S baie See ae ee EE □□□ ary ee ee “SS Pemae a, eae ae. □ □□□□ TELE | $2 fa RG Bae cae eo BiG ee □□ RO a Fa BE eat □□ □□□□ □□□□ : Shoe Poteg a Se aes ae Herta Mase ite Nee oy ties edi, Ree iy en, Tee □ Pig tt tease □□ □□ □□ a PERE Set ghost gees Miah epee (9 Se Sea Ae Sierrigires eats! ageas fe □□ SATE EET □□□□ □□ □□ Ge ge te eat ey Sutin se notes pot ge ee □□□ eee eek. ea tee BS es □□□ a OTe □□□□ eect Se PC Se taigst eS ae cS = ye ee, Be eee Faas met □□□ bec □□□□□ a SSSR a a roger par ae Sa Bete pee a pe tees □□□ Fane agate Be eS ea Nese □□□□ □□□□ eed Ay ean jawteag © ape eee a i ag wi eel es See EN gee a CBegoee er. “ego □□ Ree = Gee PPLE Et ae Se nee □□□ yo es Birt gear pe ea ois Ra deceit gigs 3 teers □□□ □□ "ae ty oy = Meret te egiae eid Peas tf Pe pets poh ae pe epee eS 2 RSs Bea i = Tis oe so Rigceett Se pir te See we oe pene Rust capt Tee 3 ech fe Beet oe Sige See = see tas □□ □□ Sree eset bey igen ae res SLs eee Bre et yee ate Use Foe pe □□ : Aine. Baie ae OAR eta ee Bae Pe 8.3 Tg See □ et ipeeape eaeers SER ae IBS ag oa Feat Sees ee gee oe antsy) Beet Say LE as - “a Ratt □ : See Siete gee TEM vate, Sa aiaw alte = Ss ee 5 Se eorres AL boat ke? aes, 7 ie £ ee Fst: □□ a Rt i Sager te, Se Seaweeoeeoe ee at ait Sia Mealy cote be eee Sie PRA yp Awe eet ieee iN Eg □□□ □□ □ Po ee Se ig a as alee a fe ie 8 Cop □□□ □□ □□ Hee pat conta x A ato ae ests Rik Cee Sa to nae: eo Metyert feet □□ a HR □□□□ □ aa Eas ye SST a SaaS pe TERS BESS a Eg BPE Sn a 3 ge eee □□□ EES ee eee Sag Oe ge ee aE OS, ee jee a ee Sere aise Je 135 Poe □□ □□ Ghee Ra we be 1) egg a es: PAS Gate cee tray wee fae 2 qe □□ eae ae oor. Gar sa Ee Fb □□ : Eee Ly Weis Se sete eerie, ieee Vemma 3 cig. eapregs liste ee sofas She: Sha a Pose □□□ - canbe ce ee Poa Bek SAO FS gs ee oe Fig, Oe ee □□ □□ Eee SS is gt te ee SER ee see capes a PS □□ at eee □□ Se ee Se □□□ Sag ase AGE st ey ae wegen | eee Seria, he Ente oh gat ot ye a □□ □□□ □□ eee osteo ie eon et. ete Seis hee Sete ice Se: esas gees PED pte fee □□ □□□□ ae 2 qeaie ae a ae ee Se ee engin oe ae ae an eat aig Seoaget ts ary PET eS □□ BT Ss face Se ae ene 2 ey Sin ee ee: in ages See ae eee ie ests ye lee wale Se opie ord ae ee ae CaN aL gee Soa a =H he □□ □□□□ ia asa) se mete eee □□□ Cae a Mase i Re aes rd en cies: Nee Rcac te ce sige vow 7th | Sea sR □□□ hee □□□ rds Pee Pe ta shag ae □□□ eee eS nte’ Fer 2 Sh Se ee RE gy aaa eyete RE AE □ ae ie ly ot tects sey sairers te g 4 Mgieieee pepe ae eee ap een Sau fale ers at wet ax feet Ye seer □ □□□□ area et oe Sait Se ge Sasa sake OAS pe □ Ae ek cee te EEE ta eee eae" fa Tene ee SS. eS Soy Mae ye te ihe Sy □□ ERS □□□ elon acai eet. id ~

is provided with in the Amended Complaint with respect to these allegations are the dates quoted above. These actions all took place within about a five-month period. The Court recognizes that □

Plaintiffs vaguely allege that “(t]he 40 West Defendants have conducted the business of the DPSCS and MCTC Enterprises through a continuing pattern of racketeering activity over the last ten (10) years with the last act occurring within the last four (4) years,” (ECF No. 48 § 150), but they provide no factual allegations in support of this contention. 3. 18 U.S.C, § 1343 Plaintiffs also allege a final predicate act: “Perpetuating a wire fraud against Plaintiffs . . . by forwarding materially false communications to Plaintiffs . . . that they were not eligible for overtime shifts because it was not their turn according to an alleged ‘seniority list’ and thereby denying Plaintiffs . . . overtime compensation which they would have received in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.” (ECF No. 48 § 150.) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides for criminal liability for “[w]hoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire . . . in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice[.]” When a civil RICO claim is based upon this statute, it must be pled with particularity. See Chambers, 43 F. Supp. 3d at 593 (“[W]hen mail and wire fraud are asserted as predicate acts in a civil RICO claim, each must be pled with particularity required by Rule 9(b).”). Rule 9(b) requires that “[iJn alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Thus, while a plaintiff may make “conclusory allegations of defendant’s knowledge as to the true facts and of defendant’s intent to deceive,” a plaintiff must 20

plead with particularity “the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identify of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.” Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999). Further, “[t]he Fourth Circuit has expressed reservations about RICO claims where the predicate acts are mail and wire fraud ‘because it will be the unusual fraud that does not enlist the mails and wires in its service at least twice.”” Grant v, Shapiro & Burson, LLP, 871 F. Supp. 2d 462, 474 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting Parker, 247 F.3d at 549), Plaintiffs do not allege the time or place of the allegedly false representations. The only reference to time is Plaintiffs’ vague and unsupported allegation that “[t]he 40 West Defendants have conducted the business of the DPSCS and MCTC Enterprises through a continuing pattern of racketeering activity over the last ten (10) years with the last act occurring within the last four (4) years.” (ECF No. 48 § 150.) But this is insufficient, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to detail one single instance of such false representation. Plaintiffs also vaguely assert that □□□□□ representations occurred “through and/or involving wires.” (See id. § 60 (“The 40 West Defendants would fraudulently communicate to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals through and/or involving wires”).) This simply does not reflect pleading that identifies the time or place of the false representations with particularity. See Grant, 871 F. Supp. 2d at 474 (“[T]he vague reference to Defendants’ use of mail or wire systems does not provide any factual description of how they employed mailings or wirings to execute the purportedly fraudulent scheme.”), Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not allege who made the false representations, referring only generally—as they do with most allegations in their Amended Complaint—to the “40 West Defendants.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 48 4 304.a. (“[T]he 40 West Defendants routinely exercised this control by ignoring the ‘seniority list’ and calling or instructing ‘Duty COLs’ to call members of Zi

‘40 West’ or those supportive of ‘40 West’”); id. 4 51 (“The 40 West Defendants, focluting those previously identified as ‘John Doe,’ include those individuals who worked as Desk Correctional Officer Lieutenants during the relevant period of this lawsuit, called COs for overtime opportunities via additional shifts, and ignored the ‘seniority list’ provided to equitably organize the process for selecting COs for overtime opportunities and which COs, such as Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, relied upon.”); id. 59 (“The 40 West Defendants have further conspired amongst themselves and others . . . by wholly ignoring the use of, refusing to use, and/or otherwise failing to use a ‘seniority list.””).) This is insufficient. Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 243, 250 (D. Md. 2000) (“A complaint fails to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) when a plaintiff asserts merely conclusory allegations of fraud against multiple defendants without identifying each individual defendant’s participation in the alleged fraud.”); Kimberlin vy. Hunton & Williams LLP, Civ. No. GJH-15-723, 2016 WL 1270982, at *7 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2016), aff'd, 671 F. App’x 127 (4th Cir. 2016) (dismissing claims where “multiple defendants are involved, but the complaint does not clearly identify which Defendant played which role” (citation omitted)); Davis v. Wilmington Fin., Inc., Civ. No. PIM 09-1505, 2010 WL 1375363, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 26, 2010) (“The Rule 9(b) problem is exacerbated in this case where multiple Defendants are involved and the pleading alleges some type of fraudulent scheme without clearly identifying which Defendant played which role.”); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Burts, 612 F. Supp. 441, 445 (D. Md. 1984) (dismissing certain defendants where, “[o]ther than the defendants’ respective positions with the corporations, ... there is no allegation of their individual participation in the alleged fraud,” and where plaintiff “groups all twelve defendants together ... in three conclusory paragraphs”). Because Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged any of the eight predicate acts they include in their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ RICO claim and conspiracy to violate RICO claim will be dismissed. 22

G. Plaintiff Brown Defendants argue that Plaintiff Brown should be dismissed because she fails to state a claim for discrimination or retaliation. The Court agrees that she fails to state a claim for discrimination and retaliation. However, Defendants do not appear to have moved for dismissal of any other theories of discrimination, such as hostile work environment. A claim of discrimination under Title VII requires a plaintiff to demonstrate “(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) adverse employment action; and (4) different treatment from similarly situated employees outside the protected class.” Coleman v. Md. Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010). Brown alleges no adverse employment action. She alleges, for instance, that she has “both witnessed and experienced unequal treatment of black officers compared to my [sic] white colleagues. Black officers are more severely punished and are subjected to searches at a much higher rate than white officers. White officers who engage in misconduct are not disciplined, whereas black officers are targeted for unwarranted discipline or for minor infractions.” (ECF No. 48 § 200.) But she does not make a single allegation that she herself was subjected to an adverse employment action, and makes only vague and unsupported statements such as the foregoing quote. Her discrimination claim fails. With respect to a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff is required to allege that: “(1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) an adverse action was taken against her by the Defendant; and (3) there was a causal connection between the first two elements.” Forgus v. Mattis, 753 F. App’x 150, 154 (4th Cir. 2018). Once again, Brown alleges no adverse action. Her retaliation claim fails as well. However, Defendants did not move to dismiss a hostile work environment claim. Thus, only a hostile work environment claim survives as to Plaintiff Brown.

H. Class Action Finally, Defendants argue that the Court should strike the class claims. “[S]everal circuits, including the Fourth Circuit in an unpublished table decision, have found that Rule 23 permits defendants to file preemptive motions to deny certification before discovery is completed.” Williams v. Potomac Fam. Dining Grp. Operating Co., LLC, Civ. No. GJH-19-1780, 2019 WL 5309628, at *4 (D. Md. Oct. 21, 2019) (collecting cases). “Courts have also coalesced around a broad understanding of when granting such motions is proper, holding that class allegations should generally be struck before the completion of discovery only when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met.” /d. at *5 (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). And while the plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of demonstrating that class certification requirements are met in due course, “when a defendant files a pre-discovery challenge to class certification on the basis of the allegations in the complaint only, the standard of review is the same as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In short, the Court is mindful that “[i]t is seldom, if ever, possible to resolve class representation questions from the pleadings.” /nt’l Woodworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, CLC v. Chesapeake Bay Plywood Corp., 659 F.2d 1259, 1268 (4th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs allege the existence of a “Civil Rights Class” that includes several subclasses: Promotion Sub-Class: All current and former individual black COs and immigrant COs at MCTC, who were subject to promotion policies and/or denied promotions and/or did not receive the opportunity to apply for promotions by DPSCS from three (3) years from the filing of this Complaint through the present; Arms Card Sub-Class: All current and former individual black COs and immigrant COs at MCTC who were denied an arms card and/or did not receive the opportunity to apply for an arms card from three (3) years from the filing of this Complaint through the present; Overtime Sub-Class: All current and former individual black COs and immigrant COs at MCTC who were denied overtime opportunities in the form of additional shifts and/or were not selected to take overtime opportunities in the form of 24 ©

Ra Soe ie gly Sen SS ch esete Sok td ee ieee eee, Sati TR ea Les | id □□ ang pokes pede 2 _ aR. Sees Mars eee Spe Baa: a a Wat wt EE □□ 1S ee Feo MRS fe Bhs my a3, Seen Dol sett ale tes We os fe Ae > 3 Soe □□ eae eS eee a a RE” BN ga greet ae Ree Sole BAS ean “5 □ Bear es eda oI ack Me, SET ee eee □□□ □ □□□ eee Sree a to Se. Mt oat Nin eRe □□ □□□ ge Po ti ee all SS as □□□ posse we Saige ny nae" os Sapedeet = = sae ie a8 ea “} 2. Le: Sere □ □ □ □□□ | OS SEAS dane ae. □□ he pe OS Taye oS ht skal Sine eRe Sate Gage ot dpe te eee, eee a | et □□ □ □□ wh Fe hare Sato aoa Wie ug. eeepee aes Boerner tet Be RT Se □□ □ = □□ anche mae te POR areteer st. elt Spee gee nage tare” ey eR Seo □□□ ENR ae ee : ateseetee □□ 2 □ Seer ete ap gies ne ee eg eee Sa Te ae | PR Seema □□□□ □□ TR Te SRG □□□ See Mtge tine SE ae eee ieee toy Sept □□□ eg at ee IR ee Na ta pte a a ga oer ea eee oS eu ee Se Hine edna Sty. fake epee gO □□ □□□ □ eat ie □□ er Renin aM EN gi ee OUR a ere gh em Se Ceo | joeeaiweah ee Sono ts eae oe □□□□ □□□□□ □ ay □□□ Rite ne. mime Giese Solemn Oar Ses gin en ee TR Ee □□ toot © 2 ee ges Gira SS ae en ee sare ay, GREE Ie Patae □□□ □□ □□ guste ease eb Tay AES Sacto eee ee □□ aiciee ake ge Se, a Wei Sea a gets 2 oe eee Be teies 2 = □ □□□□ □□ eal Sy ee Me Ree, ice srk yrag Rae ne ae ara ty eg ET eI oe coeg ety tas ape AER, Se ee □□ □□□□ ages ee et ar aaah Sica ae a ores Mes a cen ge ee et a Ee ae ea BY SS Pe beast? ik PE □□□ □□□□ SF SS) os eee gil son che es Eilat Ri SEs □□ eens gn ane > Ree oe ne eee Nea er en □ ae □□ ee Bie ae ae □□ □□□ Se sense NS ts Se Rar sae re ati, BN to SS ea ne ue a iy ee ae □□ eas ofa ot 3" aioe es areas cls ee a Saree sas eae I eee ore raat yo lee ge eS □ □□□ aie MeN □□ 2 oe SSeS WE oe aan ether. Sigs tees ant □□□ a aries a ee eas ot gee PS ve □□ □ □□□□□□ ark Aah □□□ cee pes es NS an ew, Send pete oes fi Pe Satter cue, pa pgtize oat sees ad thee □□ □□ Galen il odteiatiey ss Siete a i ale Sethe ey: | ak eitekad STAT RAS PE Sa teh get ate eee Se ee So he Saenger ae Le | Se eae ieee □□ 2 Ree ee foe tip NESE ee eS ay Shee OP Nt eee ee ce : : □ ana Ste cae Aces ace aed ene Seem ot ea ee Pay eee ER geet, Go meny Tienda Nye Seige | UN □ PR So age fie tam? ee Re ee he SGSa Gee Cece ee ae ae | = wr ae © Jaa □ meet tee □ ae eke aoe eae Sagas wie ese sega Ge Sage ee □□□ Lode : SS a □□□□□ □□□ □□□□ □□ hee Ce □□ aR □□ SMa) a See tore obser iMes, oP sgh Rane ee □□ yet ae eee Saat nt ye Saag Ok ek PSE □□□ □□ □□□ □□ Jee Peete PELye eres a) gags? A RS ais cd hd Ag □□ □□ a ee oe ee eg eae ea ity ae eee hp nn Pe ee Tsai eg ee 1 □□ Gk aE SA pata eee ee Seen SR = ae Gate: Ae eae See PT ie nee See eg eed - Ueenetie ss Set | iy ae ge = eet Sa Cae ae eae, ig ek Re a eee toys ae □□□ □□□ □□□□ £ > ies gre es Maite ace et boy 0 Pad eat Seat emesis “ore og ee ee oe ey Suit ees Se aa re pts, □ Ag So) Aes Gk eae ee a eae: Di ep pa nS hart ee. doe oe ae St co eS □□□ ai: ciao SR eA bo eral ee AG ct. □□ OG Reig ee al > SR Ay ees cee neal at = Sn | eM RR of mE ogc eas ae eee eh ke cee? ay □□□ Sp ets Babee ore awe ce EMME aeaehee Sea ised □□□ ee or nes = tog ee bate ene eee og se □□□□ □□□ □ Leste tisge Galet apciat es See eS Meee che oa eee ees Pan ti Cs late PU wae me 4 □ □□□□ |e oe, ES □□ te itd Sollee ot pata ee ts eRe Demin Ars Siege pes □ □□□□ □□□ eee eiserhee eg i “oe ae pes we ie it pie ee B'S Seeaee ee cap 2S TR, Ae □□□□ □ ge pss es 3 Seo ae arty oe ee SR □□ 3 Bee eh Pees be Pee = = □□ et aS eee SLES Ee: Phe ots SPS ee ayes) 2 ee Bot ease □ SCM Sed pee | Ee akan sl Srey mere eae ear = ie = Fe SE □□□ □□□ Siats) ape a ihe ce car we = eo ee es Poe □□□ □ z SRE fa, ae Se a ee timer ee ae yee ee) Leis Macy) □ £5 □ PEP □□ □□□ □□ □□ 3 : 2 ee Ce Pia wor a idle es ei ee elie . wo Be □□□□ □□□ a ete SrA oe alge heat ee agree ee REINS Sie en Se ees Tons ee | □□□□ Reger, pees: oe Se a og ee es ae eat RP CRS itm ep a ae ag A Di ce ig aA Le ee Ne □□ Os ay eee AO Ags ba soe Foe ae □□ ae Sa ee © fy Sieh = Teg. ie ae, OE Teac ee ef ea eat, nt Sep Paweegee Tes □□ wie □□ aii uth tegn oe ele Sek Sala Be net bad i Oata □□□ a... if Bx te eae Pe ees eiggies, 7 Roar are See tre ete Senge, 15 3S. il □□□ on □□ WT Meee SSS pte gp} SEO □□ ibe ellos mcaetiaee REM MGM oe at fiw . □□□ eS Lh sot "2s eee Fes Wh tn Bee at ee eee ales □□ fre “2 SS □□□□□ □□□□□ pit EL ie MAP eee apes sper eee OR tara ce □□ eee nen ame eg PS. op ayeeas 28 □□□ □□□ □□□ a pes ok eegie BES sek Gg pee □□□ eotat Ne ge eee don, ae □□□ gs □□□ RS ait Ue CL mare ae JEUNE oe ae! SP EOE □□ PR OSCE es □□□ □□□ ee, Sp aoe BS re ee ee ee ee, Se ct aeeieatee pa a ee epee a Se. ee chee □□□ □□□□ = ae eae =a = = Bn ae oBieds ee sete tae a Pa a ay Aye te □□□ tee Sp site □□ □□ SR te ee Bat Bc I ee Fee Ou ee Oops Pa et ie Oy mies Be eines, sod Gk. ae ar □□ □ □□ A □□□ wen Rape re ephemera AY Bee Se = oe oe ee Bee or rege □□ □ □□ □□□□ SE a SN ae cin ne ee aa ae tre □ □□ Lo og aa Px Uther st Se gy ious ae □□ ER EES ye Sah oe ie eae et Seco eee es rres Hass 5 es See es aie oe Pert AES ae □□□ □□ go es ne es ine EE ge at Se ee beer me o> eo i oot Goin eee Re OSS ok sree □ □□□□□ Se “4 = Bee ale eens Me gee gow □□□ acer abet ees eg SN i! Nsatcs) □ es Se st ates □ he 3 erie, a ae Re tego ie +h oS □□□ □□□ ee aA oe amet se Tea ripe Saget ges a8 og ts ea Se Br Be ae a a es pope 5 Le eta ae ee See tg she □□ □□ □□□ □□□□ So. depts’ bagi pa eae eer ee aoe Lem Ae aa ae ae EES Se rr Satie: Sie eee Cee Nee! oT RM et cet Od ees □ Ny ad SN eee a a neg wane ee Leo □□ □ □ get ce aha ce aul feats spe Sak EN Pee eS □□ aes Sf he! We HOE apa woe □□ □ eee 2 bistet PST APES F208 is ae & □□□ Tae untae ihe Rye he □□ Sy OR ea. Ati De a ae □□ eet rey ces bape, yok alae Oe tone aeeade Wee et Nena mest acncte = 1 Se Uy ee Sieg □□□□ □□ □□□ □□ □□ 2 Rea ae La Se SM ete care ee ca a aeceae gcole ge woth, toupte, Seep ere □□ otis Sad ete Pee gi te Ae Pee □□□ epee ieee Serres ea RSE □□ □ Ni BBR Sy BE Ee ee Ee EEG LS eR. FYE Oe Ae ee □□ Mr a ha oie eter = ae. ghyees ar PRs ee a ae A ede SER ee ee, ee tigate Sous ee Bi □□ a ea eh pean Bae! ese beat, 2 ee Ys eo go gO tary beater pe ee Ee Le ee = Say tees Fala, weet ates ee eB ta ee i HF □ ee Gas fee □□□ et □□□ ieee be ora #3 eres oe aaa ae Gelb Fi ge} □□□ aster (Reg IES MBA Sea Ro Tyee Fete eee SL ae □□□ □□□□ ghee Ns Sen PGS See oh eae, Ee fh a gC Oe AS a eh ee ge rig fas, ee 7 □□ □ □ me Soe TRS ES od ee OS viacte sid hrnies ede Spee itl ye CR ye : % ged Peto 30 serie Cee eer, SRP a REE VD ag PPO he ty esd ate es 7 To Shieh aa ie eens qe eA See eae cue gen. cage et age PE ane eee ETN ce “hag. SUAS Sa te a se Ua ene os) es 2 han au seh pepe oY Rett oe tee oe EE gon OTT AED if isis Rage goes Set SE? oa _ □ 7 fain: CTS ee: Nast oe gE Rea eae emer et AN Beet SE Seas “Seka ee eis □□ oF ol ie han Sty ee SSS euNe Fy ge ES, os st el go □ 4 halle” So SSS eye pr ae RA oe Seite 8“ De ne apetee mies at Mvaguneirns i. Hees = : □ □ = ee eg a □□ See Fe POSSE ees ey TNE an Ne tee ST hooey too Ps □□ □ ee SPST aes eed ey Ve ee ee =e Bose et □ BE ea. □□□ een ve eal □□□ □□ □□ Rees oe) Nise rs tt ste ete to era eR See ae eet ai □□ □□ □□ □□□□ 7 TEE Beet a □□□ een TE penalise ~ Hg Sty agate Pepa ae eS gt □□□□ □□□ □ A at a ee Tee See Stra Fe mass Sl eMeDE SA a3! 2 Seer Er, : BOT en ee □□ □□□□ pat TB nee aeceegnete leg he) oa Semagites Se ite gv) Sas eet tte: WW et ee De ge ee Boschi □□□ □□ □□□ □□ ee ee □□ eee Gt ee ee ete = ee oe aire, SN TES =u □ as eee ee, □□□□

additional shifts from three (3) years from the filing of this Complaint through the present; Discipline Sub-Class: All current and former individual black COs and immigrant COs at MCTC, who were disciplined in excess of written policies and procedures and/or in contravention of written policies and procedures (including charges, investigations, suspensions, demotions, and/or terminations) from three (3) years from the filing of this Complaint through the present; [and] Hostile Work Environment Sub-Class (Discrimination and Retaliation); All current and former individual black COs and immigrant COs at MCTC. (ECF No. 48 § 205.) Plaintiffs also allege a RICO class. (Ud. § 210.) The Court has already dismissed the allegations relating to promotions and arms cards, as well as the allegations relating to RICO. Thus, the class claims based upon those allegations are dismissed. However, with respect to the remaining subclasses, the Court cannot conclude at this juncture that “the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met.” See Williams, 2019 WL 5309628, at *4 (emphasis added) (collecting cases). Even so, the Court has serious misgivings about the propriety of class certification in this case (should Plaintiffs indeed seek class certification), given the many weaknesses pointed out by the Defendants in their briefing and the relevant case law. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011) (“Quite obviously, the mere claim by employees of the same company that they have suffered a Title VII injury, or even a disparate-impact Title VII injury, gives no cause to believe that all their claims can araduxtively be litigated at once. Their claims must depend upon a common contention □□□□ example, the assertion of discriminatory bias on the part of the same supervisor. That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”).

IV. Conclusion As detailed above, as presented, the Amended Complaint largely fails to comply with the federal pleading standards. Now, with the case currently pared down from eight claims against twenty-five Defendants to essentially three claims against DPSCS, the Court will set additional dates and deadlines for further proceedings in this matter. In particular, the Court will set in a deadline by which Plaintiffs must file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to file such a motion, the Court will not permit any second amended complaint that seeks to assert any factually unsupported claims or that is of the same scattershot nature as the Amended Complaint currently before the Court. The Court concludes by noting that not only do most of the claims as pleaded fall far below the federal pleading standard, there are claims that are so woefully insufficient that they raise ethical and professionalism concerns. The most egregious examples are the bringing of claims against various individuals without lodging a single factual claim against them, and the bringing of a RICO claim—a heavy charge—without factual support. Plaintiffs’ counsel are reminded of their professional obligations under Rule 11, which provide, inter alia, that that “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper... an attorney . . . certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law [and] the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Plaintiffs’ counsel are forewarned that any similarly grossly deficient filings may be the subject of a referral to the Court’s Disciplinary and Admissions Committee. 26

DATED this “7 day of February, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

/ / aon . (Do Lan James K. Bredar United States District Judge

Zi