Johnson v. Masman
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 1/14/2013. (c/m 1/15/2013 eb) (ebs2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JEROME D. JOHNSON,
a/k/a JERRY DEAN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
:
v
:
JILL MASMAN,
:
Defendant
:
Civil Action No.: PJM-13-22
:
. . .o0o . . .
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 2, 2013, the above captioned case was filed by Plaintiff pro se pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ' 1983. The defendant named in this action is a private citizen who accused Plaintiff of
raping her. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that while the allegation has not yet been tried he has
been incarcerated as a result of the defendant’s “lies.” He asks that the case be removed from
his file and Defendant criminally charged. Id.
In order to successfully assert a claim of constitutional rights violation, the defendant
must be a state actor. Specifically, the persons charged with the civil rights violation must be a
state official; someone who has acted with a state official; someone who has obtained significant
aid from a state official; or someone whose conduct is somehow attributable to the state. The
Defendants named in the instant complaint is not a state official nor does the conduct described
by Plaintiff have the imprimatur of official conduct.
In limited circumstances, however, seemingly private conduct can be the subject of a
'1983 suit. A[W]e have recognized four exclusive circumstances under which a private party
can be deemed to be a state actor: (1) when the state has coerced the private actor to commit an
act that would be unconstitutional if done by the state; (2) when the state has sought to evade a
clear constitutional duty through delegation to a private actor; (3) when the state has delegated a
traditionally and exclusively public function to a private actor; or (4) when the state has
committed an unconstitutional act in the course of enforcing a right of a private citizen.@
DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F. 3d 499, 507 (4th Cir. 1999). None of the acts or conduct alleged by
Plaintiff in his complaint fall within these four categories of conduct. AIf the conduct does not
fall into one of these four categories, then the private conduct is not an action of the state.@
Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, 998 F.2d 214, 217 (4th Cir.1993). The civil
rights claim Plaintiff asserts against the Defendant in the instant case must, therefore, be
dismissed.
To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint raises state law claims, while such claims may be
asserted in the Court in some instances, the case sub judice is not one of those instances. Under
28 U.S.C. '1332 a civil action may be maintained in this Court if the amount in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and the parties in the action are citizens of different States.
Plaintiff states that he resides in Maryland as does Defendant. Every allegation contained in the
complaint concerns conduct that took place within the state of Maryland. Without reaching the
merits of these claims, this Court will, by separate order, dismiss them without prejudice.
Plaintiff will then be permitted, if he so desires, to assert these claims in the appropriate state
forum.
/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
January 14, 2013
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?