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)

Download PDF
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

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?