Jiggetts v. Spring Grove Hospital Center

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/11/2014. (c/m af 3/11/14)(amf, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ALEXANDER JIGGETTS

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

SPRING GROVE HOSPITAL CENTER

*

Defendants

*

Civil Action No. JFM-14-529

***
MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned complaint was filed on February 21, 2014. Plaintiff, a patient at
Spring Grove Hospital, seeks monetary damages and immediate release from the hospital. For
the reasons that follow, the complaint must be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that there are acts of sodomy occurring on a continuous basis at Spring
Grove among patients and between patients and staff. He alleges there is no law and order in the
hospital, that the acts occurring violate Maryland’s criminal sodomy statute, and that his
exposure to these acts is an attempt to give him a mental illness. Plaintiff likens the atmosphere
at the hospital to that of biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. He does not state he has been
subjected to sodomy. He claims the conditions at the hospital violate the Eighth Amendment and
deprive him of his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ECF No. 1.
The complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The allegation that the acts of others
have offended plaintiff is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. The complaint also
fails to state an actual injury suffered by plaintiff. The allegations, which are so fantastic they
are difficult to believe, contain no assertion that plaintiff has been harmed in any way other than
an offense to his religious sensibilities. Such an injury is not cognizable in a civil rights suit.
Any claim of emotional injury allegedly resulting from a constitutional violation must be
supported by evidence that is demonstrable, genuine and adequately explained. See Price v. City
of Charlotte, NC, 93 F. 3d 1241, 1252 (4th Cir. 1996), see also Randall v. Prince George’s
County, Md, 502 F. 3d 188, 208 (4th Cir. 2002) (evidence of demonstrable emotional distress
must be sufficiently articulated and may not be supported by conclusory statements).
To the extent plaintiff seeks to institute criminal charges against others for acts he has
witnessed, he may not seek to do so through a civil suit filed in this court. This court does not

have mandamus jurisdiction over state employees charged with the responsibility of prosecuting
criminal conduct. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th
Cir. 1969) (no mandamus jurisdiction over state employees).
Plaintiff’s request for immediate release from Spring Grove is also unavailable as he has
made no attempt to present the claim of entitlement to immediate release to the appropriate state
court. Before filing for federal habeas relief, plaintiff must exhaust each claim presented by
pursuing remedies available in state court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 521 (1982). The
claim must be fairly presented to the state courts; this means presenting both the operative facts
and controlling legal principles. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1194 (2001). Exhaustion includes appellate review
in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the Maryland Court of Appeals.

See Granberry

v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35 (1987). The state courts are to be afforded the first opportunity
to review federal constitutional challenges to state convictions in order to preserve the role of the
state courts in protecting federally guaranteed rights. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475
(1973).
Accordingly, the instant complaint must be dismissed. A separate order follows.

___March 11, 2014_______
Date

____/s/__________________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

2