Martin v. Baltimore City Police
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/28/2015. (c/m 8/28/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)
fiLED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES I)(STRICT COUKtllSTRICT
OF HARYLAND
fOR TIlE I)(STRICT Of MARYLAND
SOllthem Dh'isioll
2015 AUG 28 A 10:0 I
*
RIel-lARD
MAIHIN,
CLERK'S OFFICE
AT GREENBELT
*
Plaintiff,
*
fJt:PllTy
*
v.
BY
HAL TIMORE
CITY POLICE,
Case No.: G.JH-IS-2.BO
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Montgomery
computers.
following
County police in searching
*
*
tiled a personal injury action
City Police Department.
Martin's
*
OPINION
Richard Martin. a resident of Boston. Massachusetts.
against unnamed members of the Baltimore
*
alleging they assisted
Baltimore apartment
and seizing his
ECF No. I at 13-14. The search and seizure occurred pursuant to a warrant issued
Martin's
December
26. 2008 arrest in Montgomery
Martin. who is sell~represented.
tiled this Complaint
County. Maryland.
on August 6. 2015. ECI' No. I. lie
will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the financial aflidavit accompanying
his Complaint
indicates that he has no source of income. ECI' NO.2.
Martin indicates that he was maliciously
County. Maryland
indictment.
State's Attorney's
prosecuted
by members of the Montgomery
Oflice. As a result of a criminal investigation
Martin pleaded guilty to harassment
and
and fourth degree burglary. for \\hich he was
scntenced
to six months of incarceration.
Detention
Center. Martin claims he was subjected
I
While serving his sentence at the Montgomery
to "a minor assault and somc verbal abuse:,2
ECF No, I at 7, He blamcs his conviction
and all"otTcnsivc
time of arrest until relcase Irom dctcntion
on the County prosecutors,
City police otlicers
Baltimore
exeeuting
a scarch warrant that led to the seizure of his computers.
and conviction,
of emotional
termination
including
in
lie implies that the Baltimore
intentional
inl1iction
IcI. at 17,
in the search of his apartment.
the tiling Ice, To guard against
the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is fri\'l)lous
or that fails to state a claim on which reliefmav
,
-
be l!ranted. 28
In this context. this Court is mindful of its obligation
of pro se litigants, and notes that a plaintiffs
allegations
See Erickson \', Pardm, 551 U,S, 89,94 (2007). Nonetheless,
that a court can ignore a plaintiff-s
claim: a pro se complaint
speculative
County authorities
It!. at 15-17. lie seeks $10 million in damages and
an action in federal court without prepaying
1915(e}(2)(B}(i)-(ii).
the pleadings
the Montgomery
is tiled under 28 U,S,c. ~ 1915(a)( I }, which permits an indigent litigant
possible abuscs of this privilege,
or malicious
and further blames
assault. battery, del~lIllation, false imprisonment.
of all officers involved
from the
for injury eaused by tortious conduct arising li'01ll his arrcst
distress, and negligence,
This Complaint
to commcnce
responsible
for assisting
contacts that [hel endured"
unnamed
City pol icc arc thercfore
County
U.s.c. ~
.
to liberally construe
are assumed
liberal construction
to be truc,
does not mean
clear t~lilure to allege facts that would set limh a cognizable
"must still eontain suftieient
facts 'to raise a right to relief above the
level' and 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its t~lce"" ,.JelallIs
I'.
SIl'. I'a.
I Martin notes that he was released after four months of incarceration. !lis probntioll ended in ]014. ECF No. I at 78. The case is not listed on Maryland's electronic docket. Exhibits provided with the Complaint suggest the cnsc of
,Hm:\'luml v. RicharJ Alarlin. No. 112136. prosecuted in the Circuit C011l1 for Montgomery County. Maryland. arose
when a local dentist. Kimlloa
2
Lam. complained that Martin was stalking her. ECF Nos. 1-14 & I-IS.
Martin makes no claim of civil rights violations against the Baltimore City Police Department or its personnel.
2
Rel(IJail
Auth.. 524 F. App'x 899. 900 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. \'. 7"rolllhly. 550
U.S. 544. 555. 570 (2007)). This Court is therefore ohligated to consider hoth the tort claims
outlined in the Complaint. as well as examine whether the Complaint is surticient to state a civil
rights violation under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983.
Liheral construction of Martin's Complaint docs not save it Irom early dismissal under
either theory of liahility. as it is time-barred. Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations
tor civil actions is most applicahle to the case at bar. See Md. Code Ann .. Cts. & .Iud. I'roc .. ~ 5101. At the latest. Martin's claims against Baltimore City police ofticers would have accrued hy
the time of sentencing. which occurred on August 3. 2009. ECI' No. I at 2. Martin's request lor
equitable tolling based upon his inability to lind an attorney to represent him in a civil action is
unavailingJ ECF No. I at 2. Because Martin did not lile the instant lawsuit hcti.)re the limitations
period expired. it is time-harred and cannot proceed.
Title 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2) obligates federal courts to dismiss cases at
lillY
tillle if the
action is legally Irivolous or malicious. fails to state a claim on which relief may he granted. or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relicf. For the rcasons
stated. this case is subjcct to dismissal. Martin's request to lile electronic plcadings. ECI' NO.3.
shall be denied as moot. A separate Order lollows.
Dated: August
,~-
~I2015
.
GEORGE J. IIAZEL
Unitcd States District Judge
Martin"s statement regarding equitable tolling because he was "afraid" of what the Montgomery County Police
Department might do ifhe took action against them. ECF No. I at 2. is not relevant to his claims againsl memhers of
the Baltimore City police department. ~
....
:>
3
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?