Fox v. Glessner
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 1/5/2012. (c/m 1/6/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JAMES NICHOLAS FOX,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. RWT-11-3686
*
STEPHEN A. GLESSNER,
Defendant.
*
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Seeking damages, self-represented Plaintiff James Nicholas Fox filed suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against a Maryland attorney, Stephen Glessner, alleging that Glessner failed to
fully communicate all of the conditions of a plea offer to him. As a result Fox, who pleaded
guilty on August 18, 2010 to second-degree burglary, was sentenced to 15 years incarceration
after he failed to abide by the conditions imposed by the plea by completing a drug treatment
program. ECF No. 1; see also State of Maryland v. Fox, Criminal No. 10K08043812, Circuit
Court
for
Frederick
County,
available
at
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/
inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=10K08043812&loc=67&detailLoc=K.
Although Fox failed to provide the necessary forms, the undersigned shall grant him
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Given the granting of indigency status, this court may
review the claim presented in the complaint prior to service of process and dismiss the case if it
has no factual or legal basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); see also Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v.
Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995).
Two elements are essential to sustain an action under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. Specifically, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered a deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988). Because there is no allegation that defendant Glessner, an attorney, was acting
under color of law, the claim against him shall be dismissed. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312 (1981); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154 (4th Cir. 1980) (no state action in the conduct of
attorneys, including public defenders and attorneys appointed by the State of Maryland).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), provides
that:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that -(A)
(B)
the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
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.
This action seeks money damages from a party immune from such relief and will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). This dismissal will constitute Fox’s “first
strike” under the PLRA.
A separate order shall be entered in accordance with this memorandum.
January 5, 2012
Date
______________/s/__________________
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?