Mesmer v. St. Mary's County et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 6/2/11 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/2/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
WILLIAM MESMER
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 10-1053
:
ROBERT REZZA, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Several
presently
motions
pending,
filed
by
including
Plaintiff
a
motion
William
Mesmer
for
preliminary
a
are
injunction (ECF No. 36), a motion for a continuance (ECF No.
38), and a motion for discovery (ECF No. 39).
rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
The court now
See Local Rule 105.6.
For the reasons that follow, all three motions will be denied.
I.
Background1
Mesmer filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April
28, 2010.
In his original complaint, Mesmer asserted a variety
of claims against several defendants involved in his March 2009
arrest
for
driving
while
intoxicated.
Mesmer
alleges
that
several Maryland State Police officers used excessive force in
1
This discussion of the facts presumes some familiarity
with the three prior decisions in this case.
See Mesmer v.
Rezza, No. DKC 10-1053, 2011 WL 582578 (D.Md. Feb. 9, 2011);
Mesmer v. St. Mary’s County, No. DKC 10-1053, 2010 WL 4791884
(D.Md. Nov. 18, 2010); Mesmer v. St. Mary’s Cnty., No. DKC 101053, 2010 WL 1881772 (D.Md. May 2, 2010).
the course of that arrest.
The troopers and several corrections
officers at St. Mary’s County Detention Center then purportedly
denied him medical care for the injuries he supposedly suffered
at the hands of the troopers.
officers,
and
various
cover
the
events
up
state
Later, the troopers, corrections
officials
surrounding
convicting Mesmer in state court.
allegedly
the
assault
conspired
by
to
wrongfully
In two prior decisions, the
court dismissed many of Mesmer’s original defendants and claims,
leaving only claims for excessive force and denial of medical
care against Maryland State Police troopers Robert Rezza and
Roger Redmond.
On April 12, 2011, Mesmer filed the present motion for a
preliminary
relief
to
injunction,
proceed
which
with
requests
this
civil
“immediate
litigation
injunctive
without
the
unabated harassment of the St. Mary’s County Circuit Court.”
(ECF No. 36, at 1).
Public records indicate that Mesmer was
recently charged with a violation of his probation stemming from
the March 2009 drunk driving arrest.
18K0900495
(Md.Cir.Ct.
reopened
See State v. Mesmer, No.
Apr.
6,
2011).
Evidently,
Mesmer was consequently incarcerated – and he now requests his
release.
Neither of the two remaining defendants filed any
response.
Later, Mesmer filed a motion for a continuance and a
motion for discovery.
(ECF Nos. 38, 39).
2
II.
Analysis
A.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
In
his
preliminary
injunction
motion,
Mesmer
asks
this
court to order his immediate release from jail and to enjoin St.
Mary’s County Circuit Court from further harassing him.
No. 36).
County
(ECF
At the time of his motion, authorities in St. Mary’s
had
probation.2
apparently
detained
him
for
a
violation
of
his
For several reasons, Mesmer is not entitled to an
injunction.
First, federal courts generally should not interfere with
ongoing state proceedings like those in which Mesmer is involved
(that is, proceedings implicating an important state interest).
See Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360, 363 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
This doctrine, called
Younger abstention, recognizes that state courts are capable of
deciding federal and constitutional issues without the meddling
of federal courts.
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm’n on
Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
Although
the doctrine began as a means to keep federal courts out of
criminal proceedings, it has since expanded to reach certain
civil and administrative actions.
2
See Emp’rs Res. Mgmt. Co.,
It is unclear whether he remains incarcerated. If any
present or future incarceration renders Mesmer unable to take
depositions or otherwise conduct discovery, the parties should
inform the court.
3
Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 n.7 (4th Cir. 1995); Carter
v. Maryland Comm’n on Med. Discipline, 639 F.Supp. 542, 545
(D.Md.
1986).
proceedings.
It
quite
obviously
applies
to
quasi-criminal
See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604
(1975).
Abstention is justified here.
A court should abstain from
interfering in state proceedings if there is “(1) an ongoing
state judicial proceeding, instituted prior to any substantial
progress
in
important,
the
federal
substantial,
or
proceeding;
vital
that
state
(2)
implicates
interests,
and
(3)
provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise the
federal constitutional claim advanced in the federal lawsuit.”
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 153 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing
Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S.
423 (1982)).
this case.
original
Each of those three circumstances is present in
The probation revocation relates back to Mesmer’s
criminal
conviction,
Mesmer’s present suit.
which
was
initiated
before
See, e.g., United States v. Hawkins, 675
F.Supp.2d 617, 620 (E.D.Va. 2009); accord Milnes v. Samples, No.
88-7584, 1988 WL 105445, at *2 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 1988).
state
of
interest
Maryland
in
has
preventing
an
important,
violations
of
The
substantial,
and
its
laws;
criminal
vital
the
probation system serves that interest.
Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-
44; accord Nivens, 319 F.3d at 154.
And even though Mesmer
4
makes baseless allegations that the state courts are “biased,”3
there is no real suggestion that the state courts will deny
Mesmer an opportunity to raise his present complaints.
there
are
no
intervention.
“extraordinary
circumstances”
Nivens, 319 F.3d at 154.
Finally,
justifying
In the end, Mesmer’s
requested injunction plainly violates “the spirit of the Younger
doctrine, since he is trying to derail an ongoing probation
revocation proceeding.”
Sarlund v. Anderson, 205 F.3d 973, 975
(7th Cir. 2000).
Second, Mesmer must comply with the requirements of habeas
corpus, which he has not done.
Habeas corpus is the exclusive
remedy for a state prisoner such as Mesmer who challenges the
fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release.
Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotation
marks omitted); accord Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19, 24 (2d
Cir. 1999).
Circuit
has
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
consistently
quashed
challenges
imprisonment in the guise of other actions.
804 F.2d 838, 840 (1986).
to
state
Leonard v. Hammond,
Thus, no matter what label a prisoner
affixes to his claim, a state prisoner’s appeal to a federal
3
Mesmer maintains the state court system is biased against
him because he is being incarcerated by “[t]he VERY County that
is being civilly litigated as defendants in this case.”
(ECF
No. 36-1, at 2). St. Mary’s County, however, is not a defendant
in this suit.
5
court for release must meet the requirements for habeas relief.
Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 378 (4th Cir. 2002), abrogated on
other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289 (Mar. 7,
2011).
Mesmer
has
not
established
that
he
has
exhaustion requirements for habeas relief.
2254(b).
court.
He
has
not
evidently
exhausted
satisfied
See
the
28 U.S.C. §
remedies
in
state
He has not established an absence of such remedies.
And
he has not described circumstances “that render such process
ineffective.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(ii).
Nor do Mesmer’s
unsubstantiated accusations of bias provide any excuse for his
failure to exhaust, as a habeas petitioner “may not bypass the
state courts simply because he thinks they will be unsympathetic
to [his] claim.”
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 (1982).
Without exhaustion, there is no right to relief.
Third, Mesmer would not be entitled to relief even if the
court
considered
injunction
his
motion
standard.
extraordinary remedy.”
“A
under
the
preliminary
ordinary
preliminary
injunction
is
an
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2009), vacated on
other grounds by 130 S.Ct. 2371, 176 L.Ed.2d 764 (2010) and
reissued in relevant part on remand, 607 F.3d 355 (4th
2010).
Cir.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must
establish four elements:
“[1] that he is likely to succeed on
6
the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the
absence
of
preliminary
relief,
[3]
that
the
balance
of
equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the
public interest.”
Id. at 364 (quoting Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)).
Plaintiff must make a
clear showing of each of the four elements to obtain relief.
Id.
Plaintiff has not made a clear showing as to any of the
four elements.
He has not made any real showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying action; the
sum and substance of his evidence principally consists of his
own affidavit.
He argues that continued incarceration would
cause irreparable harm because he would be unable to continue
this action, but such a claim is belied by the fact that he has
filed several matters in this court since his incarceration.
Neither the balance of the equities nor the public interest
weighs in his favor, either.
Indeed, ordering Mesmer’s release
would do harm to the coextensive interests of the state and the
public
in
ensuring
that
probation
while keeping the community safe.
rehabilitates
the
offender
United States v. Midgette,
478 F.3d 616, 623 (4th Cir. 2007).
Mesmer’s
motion
for
a
preliminary
denied.
7
injunction
will
be
B.
Motion for a Continuance
Mesmer seeks a continuance of this action, evidently for
several reasons.
(ECF No. 38).
First, he asks that the case be
continued until a motion he filed in state court can be decided.
Second,
he
argues
that
he
needs
another potential defendant.
additional
time
to
locate
Third, he states that he has been
“surprised.”
Motions for continuances are more commonly seen in criminal
cases.
the
One might view Mesmer’s motion as a request to modify
scheduling
order,
establish good cause.
6(b).
in
which
case
Mesmer
would
need
to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); see also Fed.R.Civ.P.
Alternatively, one might construe his motion as a motion
to stay.
In that case, the court would “look to factors such as
the length of the requested stay, the hardship that that the
movant would face if the motion were denied, the burden a stay
would
impose
on
the
nonmovant,
and
whether
the
stay
would
promote judicial economy by avoiding duplicative litigation.”
In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., No. JFM-04-564, 2011 WL 1527012,
at *1 (D.Md. Apr. 20, 2011).
Mesmer’s motion would fail under either standard, as none
of
his
state
proffered
court
reasons
motion
does
justifies
not
motion might concern events
merit
related
a
continuance.
a
continuance;
Mesmer’s
while
the
to this case, the state
court’s decision on that motion will have no apparent impact on
8
this matter.
The only question remaining in this action is
whether two Maryland State Police troopers used excessive force
on Mesmer and subsequently denied him medical care.
The state
court motion apparently concerns the validity of his state court
conviction for driving while intoxicated, a matter not at issue
here.
The potential addition of another defendant also does not
justify a continuance, as Mesmer has had more than enough time
to conduct necessary discovery and amend his pleadings if he
needs to do so (and in fact, discovery is ongoing).
As for his
claim that he has been “surprised,” it is not even clear what
Mesmer is arguing.
To the extent that he has learned new facts
during the course of discovery, learning new facts is exactly
the purpose discovery is intended to serve.
The motion for a continuance will be denied.
scheduling
order
remains
in
effect
in
The following
accordance
with
the
court’s prior order (ECF No. 30):
•
February 23, 2011: Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were required
to be served on opposing parties.
•
June 24, 2011: Depositions and other discovery must be
completed.
Interrogatories and requests for production of
documents must be served on the opposing party early enough
to allow a response before this deadline.
•
June 24, 2011: Status report must be filed.
•
July 25, 2011: Motions for summary judgment must be filed.
9
C.
Motion for Discovery
Mesmer filed a “motion for discovery and inspection” with
the court asking the State of Maryland to furnish the ranks and
photographs of two Maryland State Police officers.
39).
(ECF No.
The court has now explained on several occasions that
discovery materials are not to be filed with the court.
Nos. 30, 32, 35).
See Local Rule 104.5.
(ECF
This motion will be
denied for the same reason.
It is worth noting that the State of Maryland is not a
party to this lawsuit.
Different procedures apply when seeking
information from a third party.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; accord
Boukadoum v. Hubanks, 239 F.R.D. 427, 429 (D.Md. 2006).
If
Mesmer wants something from the State, he must follow those
procedures.
III. Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
Mesmer’s
motion
for
a
preliminary injunction, motion for a continuance, and motion for
discovery will all be denied.
A separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?