Curvey v. Shankster et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/20/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 4/20/17)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE I)ISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil Actinn Nn. G.JII-17-2IS
* 1343. lOCI' No. I'i
Maryland. lOCI' No.
I. Thc causc of
is construcd as a 42 LJ.S.c.
challcngc to the
and 2010. PlaintilI
Institution in Ilagerstown.
action against Charles County. Maryland Defendants
originally rcceived I'llI' liling on
prc-trial dctcntion bctwccn2009
is currcntly conlincd in the Roxbury Correctional
on January 27. 2017. raiscs a constitutional
of Plaintiff Virgil Curvey's
1'13. invokcs this Court'sjurisdiction
prisoner civil rights Complaint.
January 24. 2017. and supplementcd
by Motions for Lcave to Procced in
Forma Pauperis. lOCI' NO.3. and to Appoint Counscl. ECF NO.4. PlaintilT may procccd il1.fiml1o
pouperis. as he appcars indigent. but fiJI' thc following reasons. his Motion to Appoint Counsel
shall be denied and his Complaint
that in August 01'2009. whilc bcing held as a pre-trial detainee in thc
Charles County Detention Ccnter ("CCDC").
hc was removcd from gencral population and
assigncd to a small cell in the back of the medical scction. so that he was "removed
access to usc the phones:' ECF NO.1 '114. Plaintiff contends that he did not receive a hearing
prior to the assignment nor was there any court order that mandated his placement out of general
population. Id ~ 16. He alleges that he remained so assigned for approximately seventeen
months. or until December of 20 IO. and was denied outdoor recreation and the "normar'
activities of the jail. such as congregational religious services. reereationallill1ctions.
viewing. and communal meals. Id
23. lie aflirms that hc posed no sccurity threat to the
jail. Id '1i 18. In his Supplemental Complaint. PlaintifTreiterates his original claims. but now
states that Irom within the "Iirst three to four months" of his CCDC detention he was taken out
of general population and placed in a cell in the back of the medical area I()r fourteen to lilieen
months resulting in a diminished mental capacity. ECF NO.2 at 4.1
28 U.S.c. ~ 1915A provides lor screening of any complaint "in which a prisoner seeks
redress li'om a governmental entityor oflicer or employee of a governmental entity:' See Mel.ean
566 F.3d 391. 394 (4th Cir. 2009): 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915('1). Bel(lre permitting the
case to move forward or requiring a response Irom the defendants, "the co1ll1shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss thc complaint. or an)' portion of the complaint. if the complaint (I)
is Ii'ivololls. malicious, or lails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted: or (2) seeks
monetary relief Irom a defendant who is immune from such relief:' See 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915i\(b):
Slale (!lM(//:r!allll, No. GJII-16-1272. 2016 WI. 2688840. at
* I (D.
Md. May 9, 2016):
Wriggle.l'1rorth. 114 F.3d 601. 608 (6th Cir. 1997).
I Pin cites to documents filed on the Court's electronic filing system (eM/EeF) refer to the page numbers gcncrah:d
by that system.
Section 1983 permits an aggrieved
party 10 lile a civil action against a person IClI" ctions
taken under color or state law that violated his constitutional
153. 158 (4th Cir. 2(13).
Because no federal statute oflimitations
fCderal courts routinely measure the timeliness
468 U.S. 42. 49 (1984): Chardoll
(citing Md, Code. Cts, & .Iud. Proc .. ~ 5-101),
or action accrues under 42 U,S,c.
1'01' 1983 actions exists.
\', Flllllel'O SOlo. 462 U,S, 650. 655-656
1'01' ivil actions is thus most applicable
Jl/OJ1lgolllel:\' Cly.. No. Clv,A,
or federal civil rights suits by state law. !JlIl'llel/
IlIc .. 421 U,S, 454. 464 (1975).
.1ohllSoll \'. R.I'. Express Agel/(:\"
statute or limitations
rights, See Cooper \'. Sheehl/ll,
claim, Field,' \',
2014 WL 423 1164. at *3 (0. Md. Aug. 26. 2(14)
Federal law governs the question or when a cause
~ 1983, See /Vallace \'. Kalo, 549 U.S, 384. 387 (2007). Under
the general rule. the running or the statute or limitations
begins when a plaintilTknows
reason to know or his injury. III.
Ilere. Plainti 1'1'
claims that he was detained at CCDC li'om February or 200') through
I, lOCI' NO.2 at 4, He alleges that in August 01'200'), he was removed
and housed in"a small cell in the back or the medical section,"
there until December
until more than six years later. See gellerally
lOCI' No. I
of201 0, Id '117, He did not lile this action
lOCI' No, I, ThercfclI'e. as evident rrom the race or
claims against Derendants
J. Although PlaintilT claims that his isolated housing at CeDe resulted in his experiencing a "diminished"
psychological d.pacilY and his being prescribed the antipsychotic and antidepressant medications Thorazine.
Rispcrdal and Proznc. at no point docs he show any link between his alleged menial condition and his Ihilurc to tile a
Plaintiff also sccks the appointmcnt
of counscl. ECF NO.4. lie claims that hc is unable to
affiJrd counscl. thc case involvcs complcx
library. he has unsucccssfully
to contact numerous
issucs or othcr cxceptional
1061. 2012 WL U5283.
(4th Cir. 1(75».
pcrmits a court to rcqucst an attorney to rcprcsent an
indigent litigant. thc Court will rcqucst appointment
limitcd acccss to thc law
of the law. lei. at I.
has limitcd knowledgc
issucs. he has cxtrcmcly
of counscl only where thc casc prcsents
S'ee Alremgl ,'. Kinl'lll1. No. CIV. WDQ-ll-
at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 13.2012)
(citing Cook \'. Bound,. 51R F.2d 779. 7RO
includc a litigant who "is barely able to read or
iel. at 162. or c1carly "has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to prcscnt it:' See
A/temgt. 2012 WL 1352R3. at *2 (citing Beny \'. Ciutierrez. 587 F. Supp. 2d 717. 723 (1'.0. Va.
his ability to prcscnt his claims and Iilc motions in this
complcx. See Waeldel! ,'.
thc issues in this casc are not particularly
,lImy/and Pre-71'ia/ IJi\'.. No. CV DKC-15-32R6.
2017 WL 550033. at *R (D. Md. Feb. 10.
2(17) (dcnying motion to appoint counscl whcrc litigant inmatc capably tiled motions and
f()rcc case was not complcx).
Motion to Appoint Counscl
This case. whieh allcgcs that Plaintiff was subjcct to unconstitutional
is untimely and is subject to summary dismissal
by the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.c. ~ 1915A(b). The Motion to Appoint Counsel shall also be denied. A separate Order
Date: April lAI. 2017
GEORGE J. I lAZE!.
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?