Canter v. Santana

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedFebruary 28, 2025
Docket8:19-cv-02395
StatusUnknown

This text of Canter v. Santana (Canter v. Santana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

a _ = ~ ote YaST ~ x + at, aie ba ne We ele □□ es _—- ee = + SSeS | Cae En eae raat ane alae eh pe woe ath SESE Re ay □□ agrsts eee tee sa kt os aa pepe oat cs □□ ie Aes Ot =. fyi Ses | □□□□□□ aha + ee 2 pee RE □□ is age a □ □□ a □ Sera ace ees cs £ rete | yell Re oer egeen il same ue tees Sey Paces ie om. rol Be AEA Sy ee al □ es □□ ns SR oh Re eget et ae Le Eo. ee eee □ □□□ a? ae ee ie te □□□ Sgt ae Saag See Be eet nites oe | ae po □□ □□□□□ □□ □□□ ees yee IN C2 Aen Se Bina eek EIEN SE pe is eee es a yim er Se 4 £ Pig ee are □□□□□ □□□□ Tooele, ag A ts RR ae aia Seti, aie Sep Te teeta Nw ae ve een Pec wey ge sore + ee a ye Pa Pata Bet Marea et □□ ARIS ERS oP saps sie ge 4 aces = eget pry sc «eee S nies aie Oe See I TF ahh aN so □□ □□ Rese cee 5 SU oie) eae ar ott FS pete epee Berle Gel ee kee □□ aes eg 8 Pe Ay □□□ □□□ □□ ge RRR gk ae ies ey de eae pine Be 5 I Saar trop dee. ae TRA SE iP ee ay □□□□□ □□ Sethe □ eR OR ee ee Spe ae ee BRU UR Bees □□□ =" fete le, el eles PE Se erat 1a ay er aie SES aS ce a sie ee Te □□□ 4s Ss ape eee eed et □□□ □□□ □□ Sen ee Sa tA ae SA Se aS Oe a pe aie oe ay □□□ ‘ apie MEZA = +o □□ □□ ee hes beste Ser □□ coe Tins ae Eoin nor a aaaet See tee. | SN Ce □□□ good □□□ □□ □□□ □□ Sy Geen hn wet ats cue a ie tear ae gos cuents eect ya. 2 ieee genes a rage gee he □□ ays: aise □□ □□ □□ □□ a Te Sighete Be Taye ss Bets □□□ phe Ne eee Sets Sepia □□□ ee pene □□ □□ □□□ nae re hE ae ee ee a pada see ing. ee ee eh Sues 5: Lea EE RAY □□ ASE is □□□ □□ □□ □□ WE, Sethe) Degas ee ee rele eee □□ die eee See oes ae aga eS Ve □□ □□ □□ Ta et ee ee Eg ng a he geet ae SEE Meas pee are: eae □□□ □□□ □□ Sh eee □□ FS etige Ses Se See ee ag ee SSR ee ae □□ ae ae st □□□□□□□□□ □□□ □□□□ □□□ eS BSS yee teng ee eee ees 3 Sel aaa ee ee Nani ote So 8, Tabada eam, Cae □ □□□ ste □□□□ □□□□□□ ee Be eens Smee Ae ABT Bee ER oe Sgeig st Bete fy Mee ties Ss ieee □□□ ay ic eh eg) ot RR” Nene Sesh, Gaehateeie a. Pee 7 ee, EG Es Sie wo □□ □□ □□ oe UE Beare soe dane opeet gn athe Pte ue Sate hy ae Re ee ey "eee ape: □□ □□□□□ la? AT a □□□ □ tc. Ten eld ee ee aa Se aR, Og oe nd ae ee eee, ghee Oe uae □□□ es | oat oe eee Let Sead Magn iter a Bese we ae ire or hes es aaah SE Se oe Poigeete □□ □□□ □□ Sree =e iyiet = gbqultg i he Boca soe SEAS ete eee tas gies Re □□□ □□ □□ ee 7 Be eae AE Sry ES eee rd gee □□ Sais SBT teak hs Nae oon si gE □□ 5 atop te aE ATA □ Lene io sees Se SOR 8 peo 2 bays, pete ge nae NY ce eee □□ □□ OBES re ER SIR □□ ites Car eae a tee ies Sa ee Hikenge Ft aie PS a8 chi SERS Syst □□□ □□□ : Bea ae Es pega ae ae wet oe Ay aie SR EL Ses eee Se a SARS Me, Via □□□□ □□ MgSea ee. SER eh ee pan ee eee eee a ease ede no ieuaiee ee Moe (ee SCS cs oe See ea □□ □□ □□ ee ape

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Canter v. Santana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canter-v-santana-mdd-2025.