Bell v. U.S. District Court of Maryland - Northern Division et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 3/20/2015. (c/m 3/20/15)(kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SHAWN BELL,
Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF MARYLANDNORTHERN DIVIS ON,
and
FELICIA C. CANNON-the
Clerk of Courts,

Civil Action No. TDC- I 5-0489

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ORDER

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff Shawn Bell ("Bell") filed a Complaint alleging that the
Northern Division of this Court discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.c.

S

12101, el seq. ECF No. I.

a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF NO.2.

That same day, she also filed
For the reasons outlined below,

Bell's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Fonna Pauperis is GRANTED, and the case is
DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
Bell asserts that she is entitled to protection under the ADA because she "suffered
Traumatic Brain Injury" and continues to have "pain, paralysis, amnesia, incomplete thoughts"

and mobility difficulties. Compl. at 2; Id Ex. IA at 1, ECF NO.1-I.

She alleges that in prior

cases she filed in this District, I the Court was required under the ADA to appoint her counsel but
failed to do so, that judges have issued "unjust"and "bias[ed)" orders against her, and that judges
have "taklen] advantage of [her] disability by dismissing [her] cases." Compl. at 2. She also
alleges that court clerks "purposely enter wrong info[rmation] in the docket" in her cases, fail to
date. stamp documents or mail orders to her, refuse to submit her appeals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,2 and send her judicial orders without signatures. Id.
She concludes that the Court and the clerks have repeatedly taken advantage and "'made [a]
mockery" of her disability. Id.

As a result of this alleged discrimination, Bell filed this suit

against the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and
the Clerk of the Court asking for monetary damages in the amount of $750,000.00 and an order
that unspecified judges recuse themselves from her cases, Id. at 3.
Turning first to Bell's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, based on the
information Bell provides, she appears to be indigent. Mot. at 1-2. Her Motion is therefore

1 The instant Complaint is the 17th case Bell has filed in this Court since July 2014. See Bell v,
Maryland MTA Police, et 01., Civil Action No. GJH-14-2254 (D. Md.); Bell v. MCIW, el 01. Civil
Action No. GJH-14-2255 (D. Md.); Bell v. MCIW, Civil Action No. ELH-14-2339 (D. Md.); Bell
v. Baynes, et 01., Civil Action No. ELH-14-2340 (D. Md.); Bell v. DHMH Easlern Shore
Hmpilal, Civil Action No. ELH-14-2341 (D. Md.); Bell v, Woodlawn Police Dep't., et aI., Civil
Action No. ELH-14-2342 (D. Md.); Bell v. MTA Police, el 01..Civil Action No. ELH-14-2343
(D. Md.); Bell v. Cecil County, Civil Action No. ELH-14-2344 (D. Md.); Bell v. Office of Public
Defender, Civil Action No. ELH-14-2345 (D. Md.); Bell v. Probation Office, Civil Action No.
ELH-14-2346 (D. Md.); Bell v. Cecil County Slale AI/orney's Office, Civil Action No. ELH-142347 (D. Md.); Bell v. Cecil County Clerk oflhe Courts, et 01..,Civil Action No. ELH-14-2348
(D. Md.); Bell v. Cecil County Sheriff Del' 't., Civil Action No. ELH-14-2349 (D. Md.); Bell v.
Maryl.and MTA Police, el 01., Civil Action No. RDB-14-4048 (D. Md.); Bell v. Calholic
Charities USA Headquarters/Affiliates, el 01..,Civil Action No. GLR-15-0247 (D. Md.); and Bell
v. AI.I, el 01.., Civil Action No. ELH-15-0248 (D. Md.).

2 The Fourth Circuit docket indicates that Bell filed appeals in Bell v. Baynes, et al., Civil Action
No. ELH-14-2340 (D. Md.), and Bell v. Office oflhe Public Defender, Civil Action No. ELII-142345 (D. Md.).

2

See 28 U.S.C.

granted.

S

1915(a)(I) (authorizing courts to allow indigent parties to proceed

"without prepayment of fees").
28 U.S.C.

S

1915 instructs district courts that they "shall dismiss tal case" tiled by a

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action "is frivolous or
malicious," "'fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief."

28 U.S.c.

S

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii);

see

Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002) (extending 28 U.S.C. S 1915 screening
to non-prisoner pro se litigants). Here, because Bell is proceeding pro se and informa pauperis,
the Court must screen her Complaint to determine if her case must be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

S

1915(e)(2). A self-represented party's complaint must be construed liberally. Erickson

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007). However, a pro se plaintiff must still carry "the burden of
alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based."

Hall v, Bel/man,

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because Bell alleges that she was discriminated against by the Northern Division of this
Court and the Clerk of the Court as a result of her disability, the Court construes her Complaint
as one made pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), which creates a counterpart to 42 U.S.C.

S

1983 for claims against federal

officers. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980) (explaining that Bivens "established that
the victims of a constitutional

violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages

against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right").
However, Bell's Bivens action, even construed liberally, cannot provide any basis for relief.
On the claim against the Court itself, the Supreme Court has made clear that there is no

Bivens cause of action against a federal agency. F.D.J.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994)

3

(explaining that the Court in Bivens allowed a plaintiff to file suit against individual officers
"because a direct action against the Government was not available.") (emphasis in original).
Bell therefore cannot stale a claim against the Court on which relief can be granted,

To the

extent that Bell's Complaint can be construed as an action against various individual judges,
there would be no basis for monetary relief because judges are entitled to absolute immunity for
their judicial acts. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982) (emphasizing that it is "well
settled" that judges have absolute immunity to suit for acts they take in the exercise of their
judicial function). To the extent Bells seeks recusal of ajudge in a particular case, that issue may
be addressed in that specific case, not in a separate lawsuit of this nature.
Bell also sues Felicia C. Cannon in Cannon's official capacity as the Clerk of the Court.
The Supreme Court has held that, in a suit for monetary damages, federal officials acting in their
official capacities are not "persons" for purposes of a Bivens action.

Will v. Michigan Dept. of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) ("We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are 'persons' under 91983."); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-76 (explaining that
Bivens suits are the "federal analog" of ~ 1983 suits). Bell's suit against Cannon in her official
capacity as the Clerk of the Court therefore also fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.
Accordingly, because Bell fails to state a claim on which re1iefcan be granted against any
Defendants, the Court is required under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1915(e)(2) to dismiss her case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED.

Ibe Clerk shall close the case.

Date: March 20, 2015

THEODORE D. C
United States Distnc
4

ge