Maryland Federal Court Dismisses Baltimore Firefighter LODD Lawsuit
A federal judge in Maryland has dismissed a civil rights lawsuit filed by the families of three fallen Baltimore City firefighters and a fourth firefighter who was seriously injured in a 2022 rowhouse collapse.
The case arises from the January 24, 2022 fire at 205 South Stricker Street in Baltimore. Firefighters were ordered into the structure shortly before 6:00 a.m. The house collapsed moments later. Lieutenant Paul Butrim, Acting Lieutenant Kelsey Sadler, and Kenneth Lacayo were killed. Firefighter John McMaster sustained serious permanent injuries.
The case has a rather unusual travel. In May 2024, the families of Lt. Butrim, A/Lt. Sadler and FF Lacayo, and FF John McMaster filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Baltimore’s failure to catalog and mark structurally compromised buildings and the discontinuation of a building marking system known as the Code X-Ray program, violated their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on a Monell “state-created danger” theory. More on that filing.
After the district court dismissed that initial federal complaint for failing to state a plausible constitutional claim, the plaintiffs refiled the case in Baltimore City Circuit Court in January 2025, asserting the same factual allegations and federal civil rights claim while adding state law negligence and wrongful death counts. More on that filing. That in turn led the city to remove the case back to federal court.
According to the decision, the property had been vacant for approximately fourteen years prior to the 2022 fire. A 2015 fire caused a partial interior collapse that trapped and injured three firefighters, and a 2016 fire destroyed the roof, leaving the building exposed to the elements. According to the complaint, the property had been condemned and was structurally unsound at the time of the 2022 fire.
The plaintiffs alleged that the City’s Code X-Ray program required structurally compromised buildings to be marked with reflective placards or a red “X” and entered into a database synced with the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. The program was intended to warn firefighters not to enter unsafe structures and to provide critical building information during dispatch.
According to the complaint, the City later discontinued Code X-Ray, failed to enforce related safety procedures, and concealed the program’s termination. The plaintiffs alleged that the City falsely portrayed that Code X-Ray remained active and failed to mark or track the Stricker Street property in the CAD system. They also claim that buildings were not marked with the red X because doing so would make them less attractive to investors.
They contended that firefighters relied on the City’s assurances that structurally unsafe buildings would be identified and that they would not be ordered into condemned properties without warning.
The amended lawsuit asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a “state-created danger” in violation of the Due Process Clause, along with state-law claims for negligence, survival, and wrongful death. The City asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to dismiss all claims..
The court noted that the plaintiffs were municipal employees performing duties within the scope of their employment. Citing controlling Fourth Circuit precedent, the court explained that in the voluntary employment context, a substantive due process claim requires allegations that the government acted with the “intent to harm.”
The court relied heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Slaughter v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, a case involving the death of a Baltimore fire recruit during a live-burn training exercise. In Slaughter, the Fourth Circuit held that deliberate indifference is insufficient in the voluntary employment context; rather, the plaintiff must allege that officials acted with the purpose of causing harm. Here is our earlier coverage of Slaughter.
Applying that standard, the court found that although the complaint described conduct that could be characterized as negligent or even egregious, it did not contain factual allegations supporting a reasonable inference that City officials acted “with the purpose of causing harm” to the firefighters.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that alleged deception regarding the status of Code X-Ray removed the case from the “voluntary employment” context. Because the plaintiffs framed their claim in part as fraudulent inducement, the court applied the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). It concluded that the complaint did not plead the circumstances of the alleged misrepresentations with sufficient particularity, including the time, place, contents of the statements, or the identity of the speaker.
Without adequately pleaded fraud or facts supporting an intent to harm, the court held that the complaint failed to state a plausible constitutional violation. Because a Monell claim requires an underlying constitutional violation, the § 1983 claim was dismissed.
The court also dismissed the negligence, survival, and wrongful death claims under Maryland’s workers compensation exclusivity principle. Under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act, compensation for accidental injuries sustained in the course of employment generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer. The court explained that an exception exists only where the injury results from the “deliberate intent of the employer to injure or kill” the employee.
The court then granted the City’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. Here is a copy of the complaint.
