Hammock v. Podgurski et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM. Signed by District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander on 5/7/2024. (c/m p 5/8/24 ols, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TERRENCE EDWARD HAMMOCK,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

Civil Action No. ELH-23-422

DETECTIVE CHRISTOPHER PODGURSKI, *
et al.,
*
Defendants.
***
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Terrence Edward Hammock, who is incarcerated at Eastern Correctional
Institution (“ECI”), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming multiple
defendants. ECF 1. He alleges, inter alia, that defendants violated his constitutional rights when
they interviewed or permitted the interview of a minor child, while at school, and then used the
testimony against him at a criminal trial. Id.
Hammock did not state a claim against a proper defendant. Therefore, his complaint was
subject to dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

ECF 4.

However, Hammock was provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint and advised of
the requirements for ensuring its sufficiency. ECF 5.
Hammock timely filed his amended complaint. ECF 6. But, it does not comply with the
Court’s directions. Therefore, the case shall be dismissed, without prejudice.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A of 28 U.S.C. require this Court to conduct an initial
screening of Hammock’s amended complaint and to dismiss any complaint that (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b);

see also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1721 (2020). Hammock’s initial
complaint did not allege a violation of his constitutional rights by an individual amenable to suit
under § 1983.
Specifically, Hammock was advised that the illegal questioning of a minor does not violate
his rights and therefore he has no standing to sue any person who may have participated in such
action. ECF 4 at 2. Additionally, Hammock was advised that his claims against the prosecutors
were not viable because those defendants are immune from suit. Id. at 2-3. And, Hammock was
advised that, “[i]n drafting his amended complaint, [he] should set forth a factual basis for how
each individual defendant’s actions or inaction violated his rights.” Id. at 4.
Hammock’s amended complaint fails to comply with the Court’s directives. See ECF 6.
The proposed amended complaint does not raise any new claims, nor does it contain any factual
allegations that would support liability, if proven. Instead, Hammock attached a copy of the
original complaint to the Court’s civil rights complaint form, and stated that he is “not challenging
the fact that the police illegally interrogated the minor without the parent consent.” ECF 6 at 4.
Rather, he explains that he is “suing” because of “their illegal misconduct and wrongful action
lead to an illegal 100 year sentence.” Id. To the extent Hammock seeks to challenge the legality
of his conviction and sentence, he may be able to do so by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. But, the amended complaint fails to state any discernable
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, I shall dismiss the suit, without prejudice.
A separate Order follows.

May 7, 2024
Date

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge
2