Jean-Baptiste v. Montgomery County et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/3/2015. (c/m 02/03/15)(kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
HENRI JEAN-BAPTISTE

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

Civil Action No. DKC-15-188

MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
*
STATE ATTORNEY’S DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE UNIT: CARLA AVENDANO, *
PRE-TRIAL SERVICE DIVISION:
CARMEN, SOLIS,
*
DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
MARJA BOOKER,
*
THE COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE:
ERIN CHU #6599,
*
SHERRIFF’S OFFICE: DARREN POPKIN,
BRUCE SHERMAN, JAMES JOHNSON, *
PROBATION DEPT.: AGENTS A. FLETCHER
and TAMICA SMITH,
*
POLICE DEPT: OFFICER GRUBIC and
PO3 D. MITCHELL,
*
SHADY GROVE HOSPITAL,
ADVENTIST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH/
*
POTOMAC RIDGE, ROCKVILLE:
LENORA NILANTHAI, WILTIER
*
DOOLEY, WHITNEY ELLINGTON,
SAMMA YOUSUFI, KUSH ARORA,
*
VICKI JEAN-BAPTISTE, and
MAHTEME SELASSIE
*
Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned case was filed on January 22, 2015, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because Plaintiff appears indigent, his motion shall be
granted. The Complaint must be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.
Plaintiff was charged and convicted of criminal offenses stemming from an incident of
domestic violence against his former wife, Defendant Vicki Jean-Baptiste. The Complaint

concerns his allegations that the charges against him were the result of an elaborate conspiracy1
in violation of federal criminal laws and his constitutional rights. The Complaint was filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1.
Defendants Montgomery County, Shady Grove Hospital, and Adventist Behavioral
Health are not amenable to suit under § 1983 as they are not “persons” within the meaning of the
statutory language.2 The Complaint as to those Defendants is dismissed.
Plaintiff seeks injunctions against two judges from the District Court of Maryland for
Montgomery County, Stephen Johnson and Patricia Mitchell. ECF No. 1 at p. 2. He states the
injunction against Judge Johnson is “for his personal diagnosis of bipolar disorder of plaintiff
and for ignoring the Temporary Protective Order conditions.” Id. As to Judge Mitchell, Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin a conviction of telephone misuse. Id. The relief sought may not be granted by
this court. This court is prohibited from granting “an injunction to stay the proceedings in a State
court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 22 U.S.C. § 2283. Additionally, judges
enjoy absolute immunity for decisions and acts done in their capacities as judges. See Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226B 27 (1988) (“If judges were personally liable for erroneous
decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most of them frivolous but vexatious, would provide
powerful incentives for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely to provoke such suits.”). To
the extent Judge Johnson summarized evidence presented to him that Plaintiff suffered bipolar

1

The 24-page self-represented Complaint is difficult to follow as it is riddled with bald allegations, rambling
accounts of conversations, and tangential accounts of seemingly unrelated events.
2

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person with the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis supplied).

2

disorder, his statement does not constitute a “diagnosis” and falls squarely within his function as
a judge. The request for injunctive relief will be denied.
The claim against Assistant State’s Attorney Carla Avendano must be dismissed as she is
protected by prosecutorial immunity. Maryland’s States Attorneys are quasi-judicial officers
who enjoy absolute immunity when performing prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative or
administrative functions. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Absolute immunity is
designed to protect judicial process; thus the inquiry is whether prosecutor's actions are closely
associated with judicial process. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991). The decision as to
“whether and when to prosecute” is “quasi-judicial.” Therefore, the claims as to Avendano must
be dismissed. See Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372 (4th Cir. 1996).
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994), the Supreme Court held that claims
challenging the legality of a conviction are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless
and until the conviction is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned and complaints
containing such claims must therefore be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff was convicted of
violating an order of protection issued as a result of domestic violence and was sentenced to
serve 365 days; his conviction has not been overturned. See State of Maryland v. Jean-Baptiste,
Case No. 4D00278324 (D. Md. for Mont. Co.), see http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry.
Plaintiff’s claims against the parties3 he asserts improperly prosecuted him on charges leading to
that conviction must be dismissed without prejudice.

3

These parties include Plaintiff’s former wife Vicki Jean-Baptiste; Erin Chu of the Commissioner’s Office;
Sherriff’s Deputies Darren Popkin, Bruce Sherman, and James Johnson; and Police Officers A. Fletcher, Tamica
Smith, Officer Grubic, and D. Mitchell.

3

With respect to the claims against the remaining parties,4 the Complaint does not comply
with the pleading requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a). Factors to consider in
determining Rule 8(a) compliance include the length and complexity of the complaint, see, e.g.,
United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.2003); whether
the complaint was clear enough to enable the defendant to know how to defend himself, see, e.g.,
Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000); and whether the plaintiff was represented
by counsel. See, e.g., Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1989). Although a
complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts alleged must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level and require “more than labels and conclusions,” as “courts
are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
Further, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, shall
contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support, (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for
the relief sought….” Moreover, each “allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The instant Complaint is not a simple and concise statement of claims as to the remaining
Defendants and, as such, it does not provide Defendants with adequate notice of the claims
4

Marja Booker of the Department of Health and Human Services, Carmen Solis of Pre-Trial Service
Division, Lenora Nilanthai, Wiltier Dooley, Whitney Ellington, Samma Yousufi, Kush Arora, and Mahteme
Selassie.

4

asserted against them. It is well-settled law that complaint allegations must “give the defendant
fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims against
Booker, Solis, Nilanthai, Dooley, Ellington, Yousufi, Arora, and Selassie must also be dismissed.
A separate Order follows.

February 3, 2015
Date

___________/s/_________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5