Tyndale v. Secretary, DPSCS

District Court, D. Maryland·Decided February 6, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-01292·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ERNEST TYNDALE, *

Plaintiff, *

v. CIVIL NO. JKB-23-1292 SECRETARY, DPSCS, et al., Defendants. * * * te xe * te * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants’ Motion, construed as a motion to dismiss, will be granted. I. Background Plaintiff Ernest Tyndale is an inmate incarcerated at Jessup Correctional Institution (“JCI”), and he filed suit against Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”) Secretary Robert Green, Chaplain Anton Westley, Warden Cleveland Friday, and Administrative Officer Sandra Holmes. (ECF No. 5.) He alleges that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated on two occasions. (See ECF Nos. 5, 10.) Tyndale alleges that, on April 19, 2021, he was denied the opportunity to make an international bereavement call when his stepmother passed away. (ECF No. 5.) He alleges that his request to make the call was denied by Chaplain Westley, despite a prison manual stating that the chaplain “shall notify the offender and arrange a call” when there is a death in the family. (/d. at 4.) He explains that when his sister passed away, he was permitted to make a phone call. (/d. at 5.) Tyndale alleges that he filed a complaint with Warden Friday, which was dismissed, and

that his appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed as untimely. (/d. at 5.) He explains that he filed an Inmate Grievance Office (“IGO”) complaint, which was also dismissed. (/d.; ECF No. 5- 4 (IGO decision letter signed by Holmes denying relief).) He explains that he axpenlonced “emotional stress and depression, could not sleep or eat for a while.” (ECF No. 5 at 5.) Tyndale also alleges in a supplement to his Amended Complaint that in March 2023, he was not permitted to watch his mother’s funeral service via a live stream on the internet (ECF No. 10.) He alleges that on March 10, 2023, he sought approval to view her funeral service, and that on March 15, 2023, “Capt. Harcum at JCI informed [Tyndale] that Maj. Shaw at JCI told him that [Tyndale] would be able to view [the] memorial service on his assigned tablet.” (/d, at 3.) On March 16, 2023, Tyndale “went to Chapl[a]in Settles to confirm with Maj. Shaw through an email. Chapla[i]n Settles was not aware of the police or procedure for the viewing of [the] funeral.” (ECF No. 10-2 at 3.) Although the circumstances are not entirely clear, it appears that Tyndale was not permitted to live stream the funeral, and he was told that he could ask his family for a recording of the funeral instead. (See, e.g., ECF No. 10-2 at 18.) However, because his family believed that he would be able to watch the memorial service live, they did not record it, nor did the funeral home. (ECF No. 10 at 4.) He alleges that he was “so hurt and disappointed that he could not view his beloved mother’s memorial service.” (/d. at 3.) He also alleges that in June 2023 another inmate was permitted to watch his mother’s funeral during a “video visit.” (/d. at 4.) He alleges that “Defendants advanced that live streaming presents a security risk to the prison” but that this is “contrary to the facts.” (/d.) Il. 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

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

Tyndale v. Secretary, DPSCS, (D. Md. 2025).

Tyndale v. Secretary, DPSCS (Tyndale v. Secretary, DPSCS) — 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)
Kirthi Venkatraman v. Rei Systems, Incorporated
417 F.3d 418 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
Bernard Brown v. R. Brock
632 F. App'x 744 (Fourth Circuit, 2015)
James Raynor v. G. Pugh
817 F.3d 123 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)
Thomas Porter v. Harold Clarke
923 F.3d 348 (Fourth Circuit, 2019)
Altony Brooks v. Captain Jacumin
924 F.3d 104 (Fourth Circuit, 2019)
Shaw v. Stroud
13 F.3d 791 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)
Shakka v. Smith
71 F.3d 162 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)