Kelly v. Simpson

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 10/5/2017. (c/m 10/05/2017)(jb5, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ANTHONY QUINTIN KELLY, #352736
Plaintiff,

*

*

v.

LESLIE A. SIMPSON, Case Management
Specialist
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. ROB- I7-2872

*
*
*****

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 27,20 17, the Court received for filing the above-captioned Complaint filed by
Anthony Kelly, an inmate housed at the North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBC]").

Kelly

filed the Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
along with declaratory relief. Kelly claims that on October 9, 2014, Defendant Simpson, a Case
Management Specialist at NBCI, "slandered" Kelly by writing in a security classification instrument
that Kelly be "registered as a sex offender." He acknowledges that he was convicted of two separate
rape charges. Kelly complains that the state court never informed him that he would be registered as
a sex offender. He contends that his reputation has been injured and Simpson has "slandered" him.
ECF No. I.

Kelly's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted.

His

Complaint, however, shall be summarily dismissed.
Insofar as Kelly has raised an allegation of defamation, he has failed to state a claim under

S

1983. The decision of the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) is dispositive here.
In that case, the Supreme Court discussed at length the limits of a protected liberty interest and held
that a plaintiff may not rely on defamatory statements as the basis for a due process claim asserted
under

S

1983. Harm or injury to a plaintiffs interest to his reputation does not result in the

deprivation by a state of a plaintiff's due process "liberty" or "property" interests. Jd. at 712. In this
case, it is apparent that Kelly is seeking damages and declaratory relief primarily because his
reputation was allegedly damaged when he was required to register as a sexual offender.
Paul, a claim of this nature may not be raised under

S

Under

1983. See also Siegerl v. Gilley, 500 U.S.

226, 233 (1991). An action for damages to reputation "Iies ...in the tort of defamation, not in 42
U.S.c.

S

1983." Fleming v. Dep'l of Public Safely, 837 F.2d 401,409 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court

further finds his defamation claim to be specious at best. I The civil rights Complaint shall be
dismissed with prejudice for the failure to state a claim.
Because Kelly's prisoner case fails to state a claim and is premised on an "indisputably
meritless legal theory," his case shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

S 1915(e)?

He is hereby

Kelly previously filed a Petition for federal habeas corpus relief in this Court. The
record attached to that case shows that in October of2002, Kelly was charged in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County with first-degree rape, first-degree assault, and use of a firearm in the
commission ofa felony or crime of violence in Slale v. Kelly, Case No. 96433. In May 01'2003, he
was charged with first-degree rape and robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon in Slale v.
Kelly, Case No. 97760. Also in May of 2003, he was charged with two counts of first-degree
murder, burglary, armed robbery, theft, and use ofa handgun in Slale v. Kelly, Case No. 97749. At
the conclusion of pre-trial hearings, on June 3, 2004, Kelly was declared incompetent to stand trial in
all three cases. Approximately three years and eight months later, after conducting competency
proceedings, on February 5, 2008, the Circuit Court determined that Kelly was competent and all
three cases proceeded to trial.
On June 11,2008, ajury found Kelly guilty by ajury of first-degree rape, first-degree
assault, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony or crime of violence in Slale v. Kelly,
Case No. 96433. On July 2, 2008, ajury found him guilty of first-degree rape in Slale v. Kelly, Case
No. 97760. On August 4, 2008, a jury found Kelly guilty of first-degree murder, first-and seconddegree burglary, armed robbery, theft, and various gun counts. See Slale v. Kelly, Case No. 97749.
On September 8, 2008, Kelly was sentenced by Circuit Court Judge Durke Thompson in all three
cases to four consecutive life sentences (two of which were imposed consecutively and without
parole), plus additional twenty- and eighty-year consecutive terms. See Kelly v. Shearin, et ai, Civil
Action No. RDB-14-717 (D. Md.) at ECF No. 23.
2

28 U.S.C.

S

1915(e)(2) states that:
2

notified that he may be barred from filing future suits in forma pauperis if he continues to file federal

S 1915(e) or Rule

civil rights actions that are subjectto dismissal under
the second

S

Date: October

12(b)(6).3 This constitutes

1915(e) strike to be assessed against Kelly.4 A separate order follows.

l,

A{? j), -.h. j(;)

2017.

RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereot: that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
3

28 U.S.C.

S

1915(g) states as follows:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal ajudgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that
it is frivolous, 'malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
InJury.
Once three such dismissals under S 1915(e) or Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been accumulated, a prisoner will be barred from initiating further civil actions in
forma pauperis, unless danger of imminent and serious physical harm is shown.
Kelly previously filed a similar Complaint against Simpson which was summarily
dismissed on identical grounds on January 13,2017. See Kelly v. Simpson. et al., Civil Action No.
RDB-16-4067 (D. Md.). The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on July 10,
2017.
3