Wearen v. State of Maryland et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/28/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/29/16)
U.S. DISmiCT COURT
DISTRICT OF t1ARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
lOfb JUL 28 P 3: 23
--. r>r: ",."
Case No.: G./H-16-2205
STATE OF MARYLAND, et :11.,
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
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
City. in Case No, 241116000128,
There are no other docket entries in that case,
[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
or that fails to state
l'!4ichaul'. Charleston Cnty .. S,C .. 434 FJd 725. 728 (4th Cir. 2006), Although a sell~
case. Gordon \', Leeke. 574 f.2d 1147. 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). the complaint
are liberally construed
facts that. when accepted
to allow the development
as true. demonstrate
a claim to rcliefthat
of a potentially
is plausible on its
face. See Weller \', Dep't olSoc, Serl'",jilr City (Ilfialt" 901 f,2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990)
that fails to allege any factual basis for the claims): see also
pro se complaint
Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662. 685.129
under Rule 8 of the federal
S, Ct. 1937 (2009) (outlining
Rules of Civil Procedure
"when the plaintilTpleads
that the defendant
t()I' "all civil actions"),
A claim is faciallv
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
is liable for the misconduct
Iqhal. 556 U.S. at 678: see also
Bell Atl. Corp, \'. Twomhly. 550 U.S. 544. 556. 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). Wearen's
capacity are barred under the Eleventh Amendment.
to this standard.
claims against the State of Maryland
directly in its own name regardless
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
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
from a damages
S. Ct. 1114 (1996). A state orticial
action by the same immunity.
Pennhurst Slate Sch. & Ilo,\]J. \', Haldeo)/(lI1. 465 U.S, 89. 102-03. 104 S. Ct. 900 ( 1984): "ee
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"
has waived sovereign
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
suable under 42 U.S,c.
to suit in federal court. Thus. Wearen's
under the Eleventh
claims against the State of Maryland
Officer Bauer. in his official capacity are barred by thc Eleventh Amendment.
Second. absent extraordinary
not alleged here. federal courts are not
See }'ounger \'. I/arris. 401 U.S.
to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings.
S. Ct. 746 (1971). Federal district courts should abstain from constitutional
to state judicial
if the federal claims could be presented
in the ongoing state judicial
See Cinema Blue o!,CharIO/le, Inc, \'. Gilchrisl. 887 F,2d 49. 52-53 (4th Cir. 1989).
in cases in which (I) there is an on-going
(2) the proceeding
state intcrests. and (3) thcre is an adequate
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
The State of Maryland
See, e.g.. Ballenger
has an important
as part of his
(),,'en.l'. 352 F.3d 842. 845-46 (4th Cir. 2003),
interest in maintaining
criminal justice systcm without undue tederal interfcrence,
Third. Wearen does not allege Defendants
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"").
violation as there is no clearly established constitutional right to an accurate police report. See
Schluderberg, PJM 10-2121, 2013WL781599 at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 28. 2013) (observing
that in the few reported opinions addressing
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.
1915. A separate Order
GEORGE J. HAZEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?