Siford v. Alton et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 2/2/2017. (c/m 2/2/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)

•..
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TERRY WAYNE SIFORD, JR.,

•

Plaintiff

v

•
•

DETECTIVE GREGORY ALTON,

•
•
•••

Defendant

MEMORANDUM

Civil Action No. JFM-16-296
,

~2 -" nO
;;~

I
II

,.,

Q ••••
~

>:;r;:

c:;vi
-0

3-r1
~~
fTl0

~

Pending is a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Detective Gregory Alton I ECn

nl

rrI

-'C::;;:'l

CD
I
N

-f"}::ur

-0

:':;;-10

:x

Cl
(T1

-0

=:0=

~
--... en.

N..

a-t_

-.".om

':en

-(0

~c:

o;::~

6. Plaintffi- ha-s;

responded. ECF 24. Upon review of the papers filed, the court finds a hearing in this matter
unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons stated below, the dispositive
motion will be GRANTED.
Background
The case was instituted upon receipt of a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C.

S

1983 by plaintiff Terry Wayne Siford, Jr., who was then confined in the Franklin

County Jail in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

ECF I. Plaintiff indicates that on February 9, 2014,

he was pulled over in a traffic stop by Pennsylvania State Troopers. /d., p. 3. Plaintiff maintains
that the Pennsylvania police relied upon a police bulletin entitled "Night Stalker Burglaries"
issued by defendant Detective Gregory Alton of the Washington County, Maryland Sheriff's
Department. /d. The bulletin listed plaintiff as a possible suspect in regional nighttime residential
burglaries.

ECF 21- I. The bulletin indicated that plaintiff sold coins that were similar to coins

stolen in a Virginia burglary and he had prior arrests for similar burglaries. It identified the type

On September 27, 2016, the undersigned granted plaintiffs
defendant Washington County Sheriff Department. ECF 22 ..

motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against

of car operated by plaintiff. Id The bulletin indicated it was for informational purposes only and
did not constitute probable cause to stop or detain plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff maintains that he was
illegally seized and searched by the Pennsylvania

State Police and arrested based upon the

information in the bulletin. ECF I, p. 3. As a result of his arrest, plaintiff was ultimately
convicted of burglary. ECF 16-1.
Plaintiff states that the production

of the bulletin by Detective

Alton constituted

defamation and libel as it was "without the proper probable cause, nor reasonable suspicion
required under the Fourth Amendment. This conduct was reckless indifference to the rights of
the plaintiff, and is malicious, wanton, reckless, willfill [sic] and oppressive."

ECF I, p. 4.

Plaintiff further alleges that Alton committed civil conspiracy by producing the bulletin and
forwarding it to the Pennsylvania State Police who performed an illegal search, seizure, and
arrest based upon the bulletin. Id., p. 4. As a result of the bulletin, plaintiff states that he was
falsely arrested, denied due process, and falsely imprisoned. Id, p. 5. He also alleges he was
deprived of equal protection of the laws.ld., p. 6.
Plaintiff acknowledges

that the statute of limitations

for his state law claims of

defamation and libel have expired but argues that the limitations period should be waived. Id., p.
5. Plaintiff claims that although he did not become aware of the bulletin until July 10,2015,
during a suppression hearing held in the Court of Common Pleas at the Franklin County
courthouse.ld.,

pp. 4-5. The instant complaint is dated January 14, 2016.ld., p. 6.
Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is to test the
sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint.

See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243

2

(4th Cir. 1999).

The dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

does not require defendant to establish "beyond doubt" that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 561 (2007). Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing
any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.

Id. at 563. The court need not,

however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d
870,873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, see Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual
events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).
Analysis
A.

Statute of Limitations
Defendant argues that plaintiffs

complaint is time barred. ECF 16. Section 1983

provides a federal cause of action, but in several respects relevant here, federal law looks to the
law of the State in which the cause of action arose.

Because the alleged defamation allegedly

resulted in a false arrest and false imprisonment, 1 will assume that Maryland's three year statute
of limitations applies. See MD. Cts & Jud. Pro. Code 1/5-101.
The question of when a cause of action has accrued under 1/1983 is a federal question.
See Nassim v. Md. House o/Correction,
accrual occurs

64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995)(en bane). The date of

"when the plaintiff possess sufficient facts about the harm done to him that

reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action."
December 12, 2013. ECF 21-1.

Id.

Here the bulletin was issued on

Plaintiff was pulled over on February 9, 2014. ECF 1, p. 3.

Plaintiff indicates he learned of the bulletin on July 10,2015. The complaint, dated January 14,

3

2016, was received for filing on February 1,2016.

ECF 1. As such, plaintiff's civil rights

complaint is timely.2
B.

Civil Rights Complaint

"In order

to recover

damages

for an allegedly

unconstitutional

conviction

or

imprisonment or for other harm whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence
invalid, a

S

1983 plaintiff must demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on

direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to
make such a determination,

or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

S

2254." Heck, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994); see also

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (Heck precludes claims that necessarily imply the
invalidity of the judgment).
"A district court must undertake a case specific analysis to determine whether success on
the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence."
McDonnell.

Thigpen v.

273 Fed. Appx. 27 I, 272 (4th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished).

Here,

plaintiff's allegations that Alton improperly issued the police bulletin which was relied upon by
the Pennsylvania police, if true, would call into question the validity of plaintiffs

Pennsylvania

conviction.
In a case such as this "[w]here success in a prisoner's

S

1983 damages action would

implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first
achieve favorable termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge

For the reasons that follow, the court need not determine whether plaintiffs state court claims oflibel and
defamation are timely and/or whether he would be entitled to tolling of the limitations period for such state law

2

claims.

4

the underlying conviction or sentence." Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004) (citing
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); see also Griffin v. Baltimore Police Dept., 804 F. 3d
692, 695 (4th Cir. 20 IS) (recognizing "favorable termination requirement"

in cases where Heck

applies). Plaintiff remains convicted of burglary (ECF 16-1 docket sheet Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas) and as such he has failed to demonstrate a favorable determination of his
underlying conviction which would clear the way for the instant civil rights case.
C.

State Law Claims
To the extent plaintiff's complaint raises state law claims, the court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. ~1367(c)(3).
Conclusion

For the aforementioned
Dismiss, shall be GRANTED.

reasons, defendants

Detective

Gregory Alton's

A separate Order follows.

1 -:)-7"/ /j/1=

'1//"//l

J. $led erick Motz
United States District Judge

Date

5

Motion to