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)

Download PDF
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

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?