Martin v. Maryland Courts 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 I>ISTRICT cOUinOlS1RICT OF HARYLANO
FOR THE I>ISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Soutliem Dh'isioll
ZOl5AUG28
AIQ:02
*
RICHARD
MARTIN,
CLER,'\'S OFi'iCi-'
AT GREENBELT"
BY
*
Plaintiff,
*
\'.
*
,_,',TilT'"
MARYLAND
COURTS,
et lI/.,
Case No.: G.III-IS-2.H2
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
*
him following
County.
his December
selt~represented.
26.2008
As a result of a criminal
Montgomery
sentenced
arrest in Montgomery
County. Maryland.
Martin. who is
on August 6. 2015. ECl' No. I. lie will be granted Icave to
because the linancial affidavit
that he has no source of incomc.
tiled a pcrsonal injury action
Maryland judges who lailed to dismiss criminal chargcs against
tiled this Complaint
proceed in forma pauperis
*
*
OPINION
Richard Martin. a residcnt of Boston. Massachusctts.
against the Montgomcry
*
accompanying
his Complaint
indicates
lOCI' NO.2.
investigation
and indictment.
County Circuit C01ll1 to harassment
to six months of incarceration.'
Martin pleaded guilty in
and ltllirth degrec burglary.
tt))' which he "'as
While serving his scntence at the Montgomcry
County
1 Martin notes that he was released aHcr four months of incarceratioll.
Ilis probation ended in 2014. ECF No. I at 78. The case is not listed on Maryland's electronic docket. Exhibits provided with Ihl: Complaint suggest the case or
,\fm:l'lal1d \". Richard A/arlill. No. I 12136. prosecuted in the Circuit COllrt for Montgomery County", Maryland. arose
when a local dentist. Kim lloa Lam. complained that Martin was stalking her. ECF Nos. 1-148.: 1.15.
Detention
Center, Martin claims he was subjected
ECF No. I at 7. He blames his conyiction
time ofarrcst
Maryland
to ""a minor assault and some yerbal abuse.".2
until his release from detention
on three mcmbers
bench. and alleges that thcy are responsible
battery, defamation.
false imprisonmenL
contacts that [he 1 endurcd"
and all "oflcnsiye
intcntional
for multiple torts. including
infliction
of emotional
ld at 16. He seeks $10 million in damages and the disbarment
negligencc.
County.
assaulL
distress. and
of the named judicial
It!. at 18,
officers.
This Complaint
to commence
possible
S
is filed under 28 U.S.c.
1915(a)( I). which permits an indigent litigant
an action in federal court without prepaying
the filing fcc. To guard against
abuses of this priYilege. the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is fi'iyolous
or malicious
or that fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii),
In this contexL this Court is mindful of its obligation
the pleadings
of pro se litigants. and notes that a plaintifrs
See Erickson
\', Pan/lis.
551 U.S. 89.94
that a court can ignore a plaintiffs
claim: a pro se complaint
speculatiye
Reg'l.!ail
"must still contain suffieicnt
524 F, App'x
outlined
in the ComplainL
899,900
to liberally construc
are assumed
liberal construction
to be true.
does not mean
nlcts .to raise a right to reliefaboye
S
the
is plausible on its fllce.'" Adams \', SII'. '-'a.
(4th Cir. 2013) (quoting
as well as examine
rights Yiolation under 42 V.S.c.
S
clear failure to allege facts that would set forth a cognizable
leyel' and 'state a claim to rcliefthat
All/h.
allegations
(2007). Nonethcless,
V.S. 544. 555. 570 (2007)). This Court is thercf(Jre obligated
1
of the Montgomery
from the
Hell All. Corp. \', Tll'llIIIhly.550
to consider
whether the Complaint
both the tort claims
is sufficient
to state a eiYil
1983.
Martin makes no claim of civil rights violations against the Maryland Courts or the three judges named in his
Complaint.
2
Liberal construction
of Martin's
defense of absolute immunity
status requires complete
extends to '''oflicials
protection
thc statc or tederallevel.
I'.
docs not save it lium early dismissal.
whose special functions or constitutional
from suit. ... Gold''/ein \'. ,\fool::. 364 F.3d 205. 211 (4th Cir.
are clearly among those oflicials
Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349.355
(1978). Absolute
who are cntitled to such immunity.
immunity
independencc
and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion.
of thc highest importance
exercising
thc authority
apprchension
to the propcr administration
of.justicc
'it is a gcneral principle
that a judicial officer. in
vested in him. shall be Ii'ee to act upon his own convictions.
of personal
consequences
to himself.'''
immunity
without
,\fir"l"s \'. Waco. 502 U.S. 9.10 (1991)
(quoting Bradl"y \'. Fisher. 13 Wall. 335. 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872».
settlcd that the doctrine of.iudicial
with
!'ier.llln ". Ray. 386 U.S. 547. 554 (1 'J6 7).
and without tear of consequenccs:'
untairness
S"e
scrves to bcnetit the public at
large. "whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exereisc their functions
"Although
The
Harlolt' r. Fil::J~eral".457 U.S. 800. 807 (1982». Judgcs. whether presiding at
2004) (quoting
Slump
Complaint
is applicable
Moreover.
the law is well-
to actions tilcd undcr 42 U.S.c.
~
1983. Slump. 435 U.S. at 356.
In dctermining
the challcngcd
whether a particular judgc is immune.
action was "judicial"
and whcthcr. at the time the challenged
the judge had subject matter jurisdiction.
"clear abscnce of all jurisdiction:'
erroneous.
malicious.
the criminal
Martin's
indictmcnt
inquiry must be made into whether
action was taken.
51"" id Unless it can bc shown that a judge acted in the
absolute
or in cxcess of judicial
immunity
authority.
exists even when the allcged conduct is
Id. at 356-57.
Clearly the adjudication
against Martin. which resulted in a guilty plea. is judicial
conduct.
Thus.
claims cannot procccd under ~ 1983.
Martin's
other tort claims tare no better. as they are time-harred.
,
.,
Maryland's
of
general
three-year statute of limitations for civil actions is most applicable to the case at bar. See Md.
Code Ann .. Cts. & .Iud. Proc ..
S 5-101.
At the latest. Martin's claims against the judges would
have accrued at the time of sentencing. which occurred on August 3. 2009. ECl' No. I at 2.
Martin's request for equitable tolling. ECl' No. I at 2. based upon his inability to lind an attorney
to represent him in a civil action against Defendants. is unavailing.-' Because Martin did not file
the instant lawsuit before the limitations period expired. it is time-barred and cannot procced.
Title 28 U.S.c.
S
1915(e)(2) obligates federal courts to dismiss cases at (lny I;me if thc
action is legally frivolous or malicious. fails to state a claim on which rclief may bc granted. or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief: For the reasons
stated. this case is subject to dismissal. Martin's request to tile c1ectronic pleadings. Eel' NO.3.
shall be denied as moot. A separate Order follows.
Dated: August
l.«
A-~-
2015
GEORGE J. IIAZEL
United States District Judge
:; Martin's statement regarding equitable tolling because he \',:a5 "afraid" ofv,:hat the police might do ifhc took
action against them. ECF No. I at 2. is not relevant to his claims against members ofMaryland"s hench.
4
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?