Wicks v. Walmart Dept. Stores et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 7/28/14. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DAVID BRYANT WICKS

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

WALMART DEPT. STORES,
JUSTIN SHERMAN,
MIKE WHITE,
CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPT.,
JOHN F. JONES,
SALISBURY POLICE DEPT.,
OFFICER BARKEL Y,
CHRISTOPHER LANE,
GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS, and
WARDEN

*

Civil Action NO.RDB-14-2293

*
*
*
*
*

Defendants

***

MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned Complaint was filed on July 17, 2014, seeking monetary damages
from Defendants' for the roles Plaintiff asserts they played in his current illegal incarceration at
the Wicomico County Detention Center.

ECF 1. Specifically, the allegations raised in the

Complaint concern pending criminal charges against Plaintiff for which he is now confined.
presumably awaiting trial. I
The Younger2 abstention doctrine "requires a federal court to abstain from interfering in
state proceedings,
proceeding,
implicates

even if jurisdiction

exists," if there is: "(I) an ongoing state judicial

instituted prior to any substantial progress in the federal proceeding,
important,

substantial,

or vital state interests;

and (3) provides

lSee ECF 1 at Ex. 1, see also http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inauiry/inquirySearch.jis
criminal proceedings against Plaintiff).

, See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

that (2)

an adequate

(showing

three active

opportunity for the plaintiff to raise the federal constitutional claim advanced in the federal
th

lawsuit." Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F. 3d 156, 165 (4 Cir. 2008). "Younger is
not merely a principle of abstention; rather, the case sets forth a mandatory rule of equitable
restraint, requiring the dismissal of a federal action." Williams v. Lubin, 516 F. Supp. 2d 535,
539 (D. Md. 2007) (internal quotation omitted).
All of the claims raised in the instant Complaint concerning the legality of Plaintiff s
arrest and subsequent detention may be raised in the context of his criminal case. To the extent
Plaintiff has suffered a cognizable injury resulting from his arrest, he may not file a claim for
those damages unless and until he has been exonerated of the criminal charges related to the
arrest. See Heckv. Humphrey,

512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994) (42 U.S.C. gl983 claims impugning

the legality of criminal conviction not cognizable unless conviction is reversed).
Plaintiffs

claim that he has lost property due to his incarceration fails to state a federal

claim and must be dismissed without prejudice. The confiscation of property from a prisoner or
its loss through negligence or theft does not state a constitutional claim where sufficient due
process is afforded through access to an adequate post-deprivation

remedy.

See Parrall v.

Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 542-44 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474
U.S. 327 (1986). The right to seek damages and injunctive relief in Maryland courts constitutes
an adequate post deprivation remedy]

See Juncker v. Tinney, 549 F. Supp. 574, 579 (D. Md.

1982).
A separate Order follows.

-:J,.,l.y ~~
Date

JoO

f24~2~

l'f

RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

•

3 Plaintiff may avail himself of remedies under the Maryland's Tort Claims Act, following exhaustion of any
applicable administrative remedies.

2