Canter v. Santana

District Court, D. Maryland·Decided February 28, 2025·No. 8:19-cv-02395·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND AMBER CANTER, Plaintiff, * v. * CIVIL NO. JKB-19-2395 STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., * Defendants. $

x * * * te * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Amber Canter has filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 124.) In it, she seeks default judgment on Counts 1, 2, 6, and 9 of her Third Amended Complaint. (/d.) Plaintiff's Motion will be largely granted, and she will be directed to provide additional briefing. I. Factual and Procedural History! Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint raises various allegations against three Defendants, all of whom were Correctional Officers at the Baltimore City Central Booking and Intake Center (“Central Booking”) during the events that gave rise to Plaintiff's claims: Zanel Santana, Monyette Washington, and Uchenna Okeke. (See generally ECF No. 72.) Plaintiff's claims arise out of an “unlawful, unconstitutional, and brutal attack on Plaintiff Amber Canter. . . , a pretrial detainee transgender woman, which was committed under the watch of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (‘DPSCS’) by [Santana] at [Central Booking].” (Ud. 4 1.) Plaintiff also explained that “[t]his case also arises from the negligent, grossly negligent, deliberately indifferent, and or intentional conduct and/or omissions of [Okeke and Washington]

' The Court recites the facts as necessary to describe the claims against Zanel Santana and as necessary to resolve the pending Motion, given that Plaintiff has settled her claims as to the other Defendants.

that [were] the proximate cause of damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of her constitutional right to be protected from excessive force, foreseeable harm, and violations of Plaintiff's right to due process.” (/d. § 2.) □

In February 2019, Plaintiff was arrested and detained at Central Booking. (/d. 4 18.) She

_ “became notoriously known by Central Booking correctional officers and staff as a persistent advocate and activist for transgender inmate rights.” (/d. § 19.) In June 2019, Plaintiff was promised recreational time by a sergeant, but then other officers refused her requests for ssireational time. (/d. {| 21-26.) In so refusing her requests, these other officers used slimes and insults related to Plaintiffs sexuality. Ud. J 22, 25.) Then, Officer Glaudia Vincent “attempted to lock [Plaintiff] into her cell for the evening, but [Plaintiff] refused and insisted that she” be permitted to have recreational time, as she was promised. (/d. § 26.) Vincent called for Santana, and Plaintiff “went into a nearby sally port, sat on the floor in the middle of the room in protest, and stated to Defendant Washington that she was not moving and [] requested that a supervisor respond to the situation.” (/d. {| 29.) “Santana arrived on scene and stood behind [Plaintiff] and shouted to Defendant Washington, ‘Mace this fucking dick sucker!’” (/d. § 31.) Santana “then put on his tactical gloves and acted as if he was going to strike [Plaintiff]” and “began pushing [Plaintiff] in her back with his knee as she sat on the floor.” (/d. § 32.) Santana then placed Plaintiff in a chokehold while she was still seated on the floor. (/d. § 36.) He “simultaneously took his left arm and clamped his right arm even more tightly around [Plaintiff's] neck, and he placed his left hand on the back of [her] head for additional leverage and torque, in an attempt to cause [her] as much pain as possible.” (/d.) Plaintiff alleges that the chokehold “was and continues to be expressly forbidden according to DPSCS use of force training directives.” (/d. § 37.) Santana “lifted [Plaintiff] off the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Canter v. Santana, (D. Md. 2025).

Canter v. Santana (Canter v. Santana) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Sloane v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
510 F.3d 495 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)
Barbre v. Pope
935 A.2d 699 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
Batson v. Shiflett
602 A.2d 1191 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1992)
Manikhi v. Mass Transit Administration
758 A.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
Dent v. Montgomery County Police Department
745 F. Supp. 2d 648 (D. Maryland, 2010)
Ryan v. Homecomings Financial Network
253 F.3d 778 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Brengle v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
804 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Maryland, 2011)