Curvey v. Shankster et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/20/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 4/20/17)

I' (

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE I)ISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOl/tltem Dh'isiol/
VIRGIL CURVEY,

1

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

Civil Actinn Nn. G.JII-17-2IS

*
et III.,

SHANKSTER,

*
Defendants.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

MEMORANDUM
This scll~represented

undcr 28LJ.S.C.

Complaint

•

*

* 1343. lOCI' No. I'i

\\ho

Maryland. lOCI' No.
I. Thc causc of

is construcd as a 42 LJ.S.c.

was accompanied

challcngc to the

and 2010. PlaintilI

Institution in Ilagerstown.

action against Charles County. Maryland Defendants
Thc Supplemcntal

•

originally rcceived I'llI' liling on

prc-trial dctcntion bctwccn2009

is currcntly conlincd in the Roxbury Correctional

Complain!.

•

on January 27. 2017. raiscs a constitutional

of Plaintiff Virgil Curvey's

1'13. invokcs this Court'sjurisdiction

•

OPINION

prisoner civil rights Complaint.

January 24. 2017. and supplementcd
conditions

•

* 1983

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
I.

shall summarily

bc dismisscd.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffallegcs

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

Ihll11

any

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

'i 17-18.

television

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
II.

STANDARD

OF REVIEW

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
\". UniledSlales,

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):
[Jr{)\1'11 ".

A/cuore

Slale (!lM(//:r!allll, No. GJII-16-1272. 2016 WI. 2688840. at
1'.

* 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.

2

III.

DISCUSSION
Section 1983 permits an aggrieved

party 10 lile a civil action against a person IClI" ctions
a

taken under color or state law that violated his constitutional
F3d

153. 158 (4th Cir. 2(13).

Because no federal statute oflimitations

fCderal courts routinely measure the timeliness
Ciml/l/Il,

468 U.S. 42. 49 (1984): Chardoll

DKC-I3.3477.

(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
c

Jl/OJ1lgolllel:\' Cly.. No. Clv,A,

735

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,

Marylaml's

to Plaintirrs

\',

( 1(83):

general three-year
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

or has

reason to know or his injury. III.
Ilere. Plainti 1'1'
claims that he was detained at CCDC li'om February or 200') through
January of20]

I, lOCI' NO.2 at 4, He alleges that in August 01'200'), he was removed

general population
13. Plaintirrallegedly

and housed in"a small cell in the back or the medical section,"
remained

there until December

until more than six years later. See gellerally
the Complaint.

Plaintilfs

Ii'om

lOCI' No. I

'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

are time-barred,2

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

timely' claim.

,

.'

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

2R lJ.S.c.

*

1915(c)(1)

issucs or othcr cxceptional

1061. 2012 WL U5283.
(4th Cir. 1(75».
writc:'

attorncys

for rcprescntation.

and hc

pcrmits a court to rcqucst an attorney to rcprcsent an

indigent litigant. thc Court will rcqucst appointment
complcx

limitcd acccss to thc law

of the law. lei. at I.

has limitcd knowledgc
Although

attempted

issucs. he has cxtrcmcly

of counscl only where thc casc prcsents

S'ee Alremgl ,'. Kinl'lll1. No. CIV. WDQ-ll-

circumstances.

at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 13.2012)

Exceptional

circumstances

(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.
2008».

Herc. Cun'cy

litigation.

has demonstrated

Additionally.

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
excessivc

f()rcc case was not complcx).

Plaintiffs

Motion to Appoint Counscl

IV.

Therefore.

no exceptional

eircumstances

exist. and

is dcnied.

CONCLUSION
This case. whieh allcgcs that Plaintiff was subjcct to unconstitutional

trial detcntion.

is untimely and is subject to summary dismissal

4

eonditions

of pre-

by the Court pursuant to 28

U.S.c. ~ 1915A(b). The Motion to Appoint Counsel shall also be denied. A separate Order
follows.

hI£-

Date: April lAI. 2017

GEORGE J. I lAZE!.
United States District Judge

5