Wearen v. State of Maryland et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/28/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/29/16)

FILED
U.S. DISmiCT COURT
DISTRICT OF t1ARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

lOfb JUL 28 P 3: 23
CLERK"S OFFICE
AT GRL-l!D~L'I
'l...tn ...•..

*
RONALD WEAREN,

BY ---

*

--. r>r: ",."
,

Plaintiff,

*
v.

Case No.: G./H-16-2205

*
STATE OF MARYLAND, et :11.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Wearen initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. ~1983 on Junc
17.2016. and also tiled a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF

lOS.

I & 2. Wearen's

financial atlidavit and inmate account show he is indigent. and the Court will grant the Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
Wearen. who is housed at the Patuxent Institution. complains that on April 27. 2016.
Officer Bauer "wrote a talse police report" charging him ,,"ith first degree-assault. second-degree
assault and reckless endangerment. As a result. Wearen was arrestcd. and. because he was unable
to go to work at his job as an electrician. was terminated Irom his employment. As relieC he
seeks to be paid for his lost wages. See ECF No. I at 3. The Court takes notice that Wearen is
charged in the District Court for Prince George's County in criminal Case No. 2E00593350 with
two counts of second-degree assault and one count of reckless endangerment. On May 27. 2016.
the first-degree assault charge was dropped. It!. The second-degree and reekless endangerment
charges remain pending. No trial date has been set. On June 27. 2016. Wearentiled a Petition fiJr
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Waive Prepayment of the tiling lee in the Circuit Court for

Baltimore

City. in Case No, 241116000128,

There are no other docket entries in that case,

S

[injimna pauperis] tilings ....

"Under 28 U.S,c.

1915(e). which governs

court must dismiss an action that the court tinds to be li'ivolous or malicious

a district

or that fails to state

l'!4ichaul'. Charleston Cnty .. S,C .. 434 FJd 725. 728 (4th Cir. 2006), Although a sell~

a claim:'
represented

plaintiffs

meritorious

case. Gordon \', Leeke. 574 f.2d 1147. 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). the complaint

articulate

pleadings

are liberally construed

facts that. when accepted

to allow the development

as true. demonstrate

a claim to rcliefthat

of a potentially
must

is plausible on its

face. See Weller \', Dep't olSoc, Serl'",jilr City (Ilfialt" 901 f,2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990)
(dismissing

Ashcrofi

that fails to allege any factual basis for the claims): see also

pro se complaint

1',

Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662. 685.129

under Rule 8 of the federal

S, Ct. 1937 (2009) (outlining

Rules of Civil Procedure

plausible

"when the plaintilTpleads

inference

that the defendant

pleading requirements

t()I' "all civil actions"),

A claim is faciallv

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

is liable for the misconduct

alleged:'

Iqhal. 556 U.S. at 678: see also

Bell Atl. Corp, \'. Twomhly. 550 U.S. 544. 556. 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). Wearen's
be dismissed

without prejudice

First. Wearen's

pursuant

capacity are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.

congressional

abrogation.

will

to this standard.

claims against the State of Maryland

directly in its own name regardless

Complaint

and Otlicer

Bauer in his otlicial

which provides that "a State cannot be sued

of the relief sought:'

absent consent or permissible

See Kentucky \'. Graham. 473 U.S. 159. 167 n.14. 105 S, Ct.

3099( 1985); see also: Kimel

I'.

Florida Ed. olRege11ls. 528 U.S, 62. 73. 120 S, Ct. 631 (2000):

Seminole Tribe (II Florida \', Florida. 517U,S,
acting in his ofticial capacity

is protected

44. 54.116

from a damages

S. Ct. 1114 (1996). A state orticial
action by the same immunity.

See

Pennhurst Slate Sch. & Ilo,\]J. \', Haldeo)/(lI1. 465 U.S, 89. 102-03. 104 S. Ct. 900 ( 1984): "ee

2

also Will v. MichiK(//1Dep " (!fShlle Police. 491 U.S. 58. 70-71. 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1989) (noting
that a state official is not a "person"
Maryland

has waived sovereign

immunity

*

1983), While the State of

for certain types of cases brought in state courts. see

* 12-201 (a). it has not waived

Md, Code Ann" State Gov't
Amendment

suable under 42 U.S,c.

to suit in federal court. Thus. Wearen's

immunity

under the Eleventh

claims against the State of Maryland

and

Officer Bauer. in his official capacity are barred by thc Eleventh Amendment.
Second. absent extraordinary

circumstances

not alleged here. federal courts are not

See }'ounger \'. I/arris. 401 U.S.

authorized

to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings.

37.44.91

S. Ct. 746 (1971). Federal district courts should abstain from constitutional

to state judicial
proceeding.

proceedings

if the federal claims could be presented

challcnges

in the ongoing state judicial

See Cinema Blue o!,CharIO/le, Inc, \'. Gilchrisl. 887 F,2d 49. 52-53 (4th Cir. 1989).

Younger abstention

is appropriate

in cases in which (I) there is an on-going

implicates

important

statc judicial

proceeding.

(2) the proceeding

state intcrests. and (3) thcre is an adequate

opportunity

to present the federal claims in the state case. Emprs. Resource Manageme11l Co"

Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126. 1134 (4th Cir. 1995).1 Such is thc case here. If Wear en intends to
attack the criminal charges pending against him. he must challcnge
state criminal

procecding,

The State of Maryland

See, e.g.. Ballenger

has an important

1'.

their legitimacy

as part of his

(),,'en.l'. 352 F.3d 842. 845-46 (4th Cir. 2003),

interest in maintaining

the eflicient

operation

of its

criminal justice systcm without undue tederal interfcrence,
Third. Wearen does not allege Defendants
The unsubstantiated

allegation

knowingly

made a false report against him,

of a "false" police report does not implicate a constitutional

I While there are exceptions to applying the }'OUJ1~t!r abstention doctrine, nOlle are apparent here. See Nil'f!HS 1',
Gi/christ,44 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 2006) (ro//l1ger is not applied only where "( I) there is a showing of bad faith or
harassment by state officials responsible for the prosecution: (1) the state law to be applied in the criminal
proceeding is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions: or (3) other extraordinary
circumstances exist that present a threat of immediate and irreparable injury"").

3

violation as there is no clearly established constitutional right to an accurate police report. See
Royster

1'.

Schluderberg, PJM 10-2121, 2013WL781599 at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 28. 2013) (observing

that in the few reported opinions addressing

S

1983 claims arising out of false police reports.
/

federal courts have reiterated there is no clearly established constitutional right to accurate police
reports and granting qualified immunity in favor of police oflicer defendants).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 42 U.S.c.

S

1915. A separate Order

follows.

h;t-

7(U/2(J',b

GEORGE J. HAZEL

Date

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4