Williams v. United States

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 10/11/2012. (c/m 10/11/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
HARRY JAMAL WILLIAMS

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

UNITED STATES

*

Defendant

Civil Action No. PJM-12-2682

*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Self-represented plaintiff Harry Jamal Williams brings this action under the Federal Tort
Claims Act1 against the United States, claiming the United States Attorney District of Maryland,
several Assistant United States Attorneys, and other attorneys employed by the Department of
Justice and the Internal Revenue Service, claiming they are “joint tort-feasors” because their actions
resulted his “false arrest” and allegedly improper conviction. He demands $4,386,600,00.00 in
damages.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who is known as Harry James Williams, was convicted following a jury trial of
presenting a false claim to the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 in United
States v. Williams, Criminal Case No. DKC-10-102 (D. Md. 2010). When Williams failed to appear
for sentencing, he was sentenced in absentia to concurrent terms of imprisonment of sixty and
seventy-two months, to be followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $
1,149,170.19 in restitution. Plaintiff did not appeal. His later filed Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence was denied in Williams v United States, Civil Action No. DKC-11-950 (D. Md.
2012).

1

Plaintiff has submitted a copy of the administrative tort claim he submitted to the Department of Justice on August
11, 2011, and claims he received no response. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff provides no factual predicate to find federal
officials committed any actions in tort against him.

ANALYSIS
Although Williams styles his Complaint as brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he is
actually attempting to present a prisoner civil rights complaint for damages against federal officials
under the holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388, 397 (1971),2 and this case will be construed accordingly. Plaintiff has failed to submit the
$350.00 filing fee or provide a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but will be granted in
forma pauperis status for the limited purpose of preliminary review.
Review of this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915, 1915A, and applicable case
precedent. Mindful that Williams is a pro se litigant, the court construed his complaint liberally.
See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007).
Even under this less stringent standard, however, the Complaint is subject to summary dismissal
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Neither civil tort nor prisoner civil rights actions are appropriate vehicles for challenging the
validity of a criminal judgment. Unless a criminal conviction is reversed on appeal, on collateral
review, expunged, or otherwise declared invalid, a civil rights action based on the conviction is
barred under the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87. (1994). In this case, judgment

2

Bivens established a cause of action under the Constitution of the United States against federal officials for the
violation of federal constitutional rights. A Bivens claim is analogous to a claim under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Case law
involving § 1983 claims is applicable in Bivens actions. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

2

in favor of Plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and sentence;
consequently, this case must be dismissed.3 A separate Order follows.

/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

October 11, 2012

3

It also bears noting that federal prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages for actions taken while
performing traditional prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)).

3