Montgomery v. Stansfield

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 4/25/14. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY,
#412-797
Plaintiff,
v
THOMAS F. STANSFIELD
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. ELH-14-1355
*
*
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM

On April 21, 2014, David Michael Montgomery filed correspondence seeking injunctive
relief. The correspondence will be treated as a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
dismissed for the reasons that follow.
Montgomery, a frequent self-represented litigant in this court, asks for intervention on his
behalf in Criminal Case 06-K-13-043713 before the Honorable Thomas F. Stansfield in the
Circuit Court for Carroll County. In that case, Montgomery, who was represented by counsel
from the Office of the Public Defender, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder on December
30, 2013.1 Montgomery indicates that he has since filed a “motion to dismiss” his case and will
be representing himself at a hearing on the motion set for May 15, 2014. Montgomery requests
the intervention of this court to “explain how many times that my constitutional rights been [sic]
violated.” (Complaint at 1, ECF 1). Contrary to Montgomery’s implied assumption, however,

1

This information was electronically accessed on the Maryland Judiciary Case Search
Website.
See
http://casesearch
.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=
06K13043713&loc=61&detailLoc=. The May 15, 2014 hearing appears on the electronic
docket.

this court has to date yet to determine a violation of Montgomery’s constitutional rights in any
pending or closed case.2
In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a federal court must not interfere with
ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971); Cinema
Blue of Charlotte, Inc., v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 50–53 (4th Cir. 1989) (district courts should
abstain from constitutional challenges to state judicial proceedings if the federal claims have
been or could have been presented in an ongoing state judicial proceeding). The abstention
doctrine articulated in Younger establishes that, under principles of comity and federalism, a
federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings unless extraordinary
circumstances exist. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44. Abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is
required if the proceedings are ongoing, implicate important state interests, afford an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal questions, and the federal relief sought would interfere in some
manner with the state court litigation presented. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State
Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Newsome v. Broward County Pub. Defenders, 304 F. App'x
814, 816 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished).
Younger is not applied in a case where “(1) there is a showing of bad faith or harassment
by state officials responsible for the prosecution; (2) the state law to be applied in the criminal
proceeding is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions; or (3) other
extraordinary circumstances exist that present a threat of immediate and irreparable injury.”
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 44 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). To prevail

2

In Civil Action No. ELH-13-930, Montgomery v Bigham, et al, summary judgment was
granted in favor of all defendants except Conmed, Inc. Montgomery, who is raising claims of
inadequate medical care against Conmed, was appointed counsel in that case, and the case
remains pending. No determination of constitutional abridgement has been made in this or any
other case filed by Montgomery.
2

under the bad faith exception, a litigant must show “a prosecution has been brought without a
reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Suggs v. Brannon, 804 F.2d 274, 278
(4th Cir.1986). “[I]t is the plaintiff's ‘heavy burden’ to overcome the bar of Younger abstention
by setting forth more than mere allegations of bad faith or harassment.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122
F.3d 885, 890 (10th Cir. 1997).
The Younger abstention doctrine applies in this case. First, Montgomery has pending
state criminal proceedings. Second, an on-going state criminal proceeding clearly implicates an
important state interest. The State of Maryland has an important interest in maintaining the
efficient operation of its criminal justice system without undue federal interference. Third,
Montgomery has the opportunity to present his claims to the state court. Lastly, Montgomery
does not allege any facts to establish bad faith or that he was prosecuted “without a reasonable
expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Suggs, 804 F.2d at 278. Accordingly, this case will
be dismissed by a separate Order to follow.

April 25, 2014
Date

/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

3