Martin v. Montgomery County Department of Police et al

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 DISTRICT COD16.1RICT MARYLAND
OF
FOR TilE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

1015 AUG 28 A 10:02

SOllthem DiI'isioll

CLERK'S OFFICE:
AT GREEH9ELT

*
RICHARD MARTIN,

*

Plaintiff,

*

\'.

*

MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, et lIl.,

*

BY

. _fl'Pi!iY

Case No.: C.1II-1S-2.BI

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Martin. a resident of Boston. Massachusetts.
against the Montgomery
improperly
computers,

in elfecting
I

County police department
his an'est and later searching

filed a personal injury action

and !llllr of its oflicers. alleging they acted
his Baltimore

ECF No, I at 6. 9-14. Martin. \\'ho is selt:represented.

August 6. 2015. ECF No.1.
financial affidavit

apartment

and seizing his

tiled this Complaint

He will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

accompanying

his Complaint

on

because the

indicates that he has no source of income. Eel'

NO.2,
As a result of Defendants'
Montgomery

criminal

investigation

and a subsequent

County Circuit Court. Martin pleaded guilty to harassment

indictment

in the

and fourth degree

I The search and seizure occun"ed pursuant to a walTanl issued following Mm1in's December 26. 200R arrest in
Montgomery County. Maryland.

burglary.

to six months of incarccration2

for which he was scntcnced

at the Montgomery

County Detcntion

Whilc scrving his scntcnee

Ccntcr. Martin claims he was subjectcd

and somc vcrbal abuse ... J ECI' NO.1 at 7. lie blamcs his conviction
that [he] cndured"

Montgomery
stcmming

Montgomery

County police are thcrefore

from his arrest and conviction,

imprisonmcnt.

intentional

million in damagcs

infliction

and tcrmination

or malicious

rcsponsible
including

of cmotional

assault. battcry. dcfamation.

1915(a)(I),

which permits an indigent litigant

thc tiling Ice, To guard against

the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is /i'ivoious
l!ranted.
. bc -

28 U.S.c.

In this context, this Court is mindful of its obligation

the pleadings

of pro sc litigants, and notes that a plaintilTs

See Erickson

". I'anlu.\', 551 U,S, 89.94

that a court can ignore a plaintiffs
claim: a pro se complaint
speculative

!d at 17-18,

of all officers involved,

*

allegations

(2007), Nonetheless.

*.

to liberally construe

are assumed

liberal construction

to be true.
does not mean

clear failure to allege facts that would sct forth a cognizablc

"must still contain sufficicnt

taets .to raise a right to rclief above thc

level' and 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

Rex "I./ail AUIh.. 524 F. App'x

f~llse

!d at 16. Ilc sceks S I0

distrcss, and ncgligenec,

or that fails to state a claim on which reliefmav

1915(e)(2)(I3)(i)-(ii),

improper

for injury arising fi'om tortious conduct

an action in fedcral court without prepaying

possiblc abuscs of this privilcge.

on allegedly

contacts

County police, Ilc implies that the identified

is fIled undcr 28 U,S,c.

This Complaint
to commencc

and all "offcnsivc

from the timc of arrest until rclcasc from dctention

conduct on the part ofthc

to "a minor assault

899. 900 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting

!~lCC""

Adall1.\' \'.

.'1'.1', Va.

Bell All. Corp. ". T\I'olllh~)'. 550

Martillllotes that he was released atier four months of inc arc era lion. His probation endt'd in2014. ECF Nt\, I al 7-8. The case is not listed on Maryland"s electronic docket. Exhibits provided with the Complaint suggest tht: case of
Jlm:\'land \', Richard ,\fartin. No. 112136. prosecuted in the Circuit COUll for !\rlontgomcry Coullty. l'vlaryland. mose
when a local dentist. Kim Hoa Lam. complained that Marlin \\'a5 stalking her. ECF Nos. 1- t 4 & 1-1.5.
!

.• Martin makes no claim of civil rights violations
personnel.

against the Montgomery

2

County Police Department or its

U.S. 544, 555. 570 (2007)). This Court is therefore
outlined

in the Complaint,

rights violation

as well as examine

S

under 42 U.S.c.

Libcral construction
either theory ofliability.

the time of sentencing.
equitable

is sufficient

to statc a civil

docs not save it Ii'om early dismissal

Maryland's

general three-year

under

statutc of limitations

to the case at bar. See Md. Code Ann .. Cis. & .Iud. Proc ..

claims against Baltimore

which occurred

S 5-

City police officers would havc accrued by

on August 3. 2009. lOCI' No. I at 2. Martin's

tolling based upon his inability to lind an attorney to represent

unavailing.4

both the tort claims

1983.

as it is time-barred.

10 I. At the latest. Martin's

to consider

whether the Complaint

of Martin' s Complaint

for civil actions is most applicable

obligated

request f()I'

him in a civil action is

ECF No. I at 2. Because Martin did not lile the instant lawsuit bcl()re the limitations

period expired. it is time-barred
Title 28 U.S.c.

S

and cannot procced.

1915(e)(2)

obligates

action is legally frivolous or malicious.
seeks monetary

lillY lillie

if the

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. or

relief against a defendant

stated, this case is subject to dismissal.

federal courts to dismiss cases at

who is immune from such relief. For the reasons

Martin's

request to file electronic

pleadings

(lOCI' No.3)

shall be denied as moot. A separate Order 1()llows.

Dated:

August

/vA-

28 .2015

(,EORGE J. llAZEL
United States District Judge

-l MaJ1in states that he tiled some sort o1'al1 initial complaint against the Police Department four months after his
probation ended in December of2014 because he was "afraid" a'-what the police might do ifhe took action against
them. ECF No. I at 2. This statement docs not explain why he failed to file a 1011 action ill federal COUl1 within the
three-year limitations period.

3