Montgomery v. State of Maryland

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/29/2017. (c/m 6/30/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY,
#412797, #2405284
Petitioner
v
STATE OF MARYLAND
Respondent

*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. ELH-17-1427
*
*
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM

On May 19, 2017, David Michael Montgomery, who is an inmate at Patuxent Institution
in Jessup, Maryland, sent a letter to "the federal court" asking this Court to "step in" to compel a
state court judge to respond to his letters and to schedule a hearing concerning his mental health
treatment. ECF 1.
In his letter, Montgomery acknowledges that he is prescribed medication and receives
other treatment at Patuxent. But, he indicated that he still feels like he is being “molested every
day.” Id. at 3. Moreover, he complains about a worm is in his body, and asserts that he suffers
from problems caused by a “gang’s technology”, the "Walking Dead", a “Bird flu,” and other
ideations. Id. at 6. I viewed Montgomery’s allegations as raising serious concerns about his
immediate mental health and safety, and directed counsel for the State of Maryland to file a
report addressing Montgomery’s mental health status within twenty-eight days. ECF 2.
Montgomery subsequently sent other letters to the Court. See ECF 4; ECF 5; ECF 6. He
seems to complain about his mental health and medical care.
On June 28, 2017, the State of Maryland filed its report (ECF 7) with a Declaration
executed by Lynda Bonieskie, PhD, Deputy Director of Mental Health for the Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”). ECF 7-1. She notes that

Montgomery is in general population at Patuxent. Id. at ¶ 9.
Dr. Bonieskie states that Montgomery is “diagnosed with a Serious Mental Illness,
Delusional Disorder, Somatic type.” Id. at ¶5. Montgomery suffers tactile hallucinations and is
receiving both individual counseling and psychotropic medications. Id. at ¶6. He has limited
insight into his tactile hallucinations but acknowledges at times that the "worms" are not really in
his body. Id. at ¶7. Montgomery is seen every 8 weeks by a psychiatric provider and every 3
weeks by a counselor. Id. at ¶8.
Dr. Bonieskie has asked not to submit Montgomery’s mental health records due to her
concern for his privacy as well as the negative consequences should these records become
available to him.

After reviewing this limited report, I am satisfied that mental health

professionals at Patuxent are aware of the concerns Montgomery raises in his letter.
In the spirit of liberal construction, I will treat Montgomery’s correspondence (ECF 1) as
a petition for writ of mandamus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because the relief he seeks is
in the nature of mandamus relief against a Maryland state judge who has not answered him. This
court does not have jurisdiction over State employees in an action for writ of mandamus. See
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), see also 28
U.S.C. § 1361 (establishing federal court mandamus jurisdiction over officer or employees of the
United States). Therefore, Montgomery is not entitled to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly,
the petition will be denied.1

1

The Court notes that Montgomery is a frequent litigator in this Court.
Memorandum does not pertain to any future claims that Montgomery might have.

This

Beginning in 2015, Montgomery filed the following cases: Montgomery v. Bonsale,
Civil Action ELH-14-3885 (D. Md. 2014); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action ELH-15-1087
(D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Bishop, et al., Civil Action ELH-15-1345 (D. Md. 2015);
Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action No. ELH-15-1533 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v.
2

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Buck v. Davis, ___
U.S.___, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773 (February 22, 2017) (citing Miller-El v. Cockerell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003)). Insofar as a certificate of appealability may be required to appeal this decision, I
find the legal standard for issuance has not been met and decline to issue a certificate of
appealability.
CONCLUSION
For reasons discussed above, I will deny the petition for writ of mandamus and will
decline to issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Order follows.

June 29, 2017
Date

_________/s/______________________
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

Animation Adventer’s Computer Game Internet Ower [sic], All Viewers, Civil Action ELH-151772 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Animation Advents, Civil Action ELH-15-1884 (D. Md.
2015); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action ELH-15-2029 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v.
Warden, Civil Action ELH-15-2439 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action ELH15-2826 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action ELH-15-3005 (D. Md. );
Montgomery v. Nero, et al., Civil Action ELH-15-3212 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Patuxent
Institution, et al., ELH-15-3221 (D. Md. 2015); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action 16-377 (D.
Md. 2016); Montgomery v. Warden, Civil Action ELH-16-2507 (D. Md. 2016); Montgomery v.
Lieal, et al, ELH-16-2629 (D. Md. 2016); Montgomery v. WCI Medical Department, et al., Civil
Action JKB-17-299 (D. Md. 2017).
Montgomery also filed many cases prior to 2015. He was assigned a third “strike” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in case ELH-15-1772.
3