Grimes v. Engram et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 5/3/2017. (c/m 05/03/2017 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JEROME L. GRIMES
Civil Action No. PX-17-991
MRS. ENGRAM (Clerk Process II Supervisor) *
JANE DOE (Clerk Process II)
DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY
The above-captioned complaint was filed by Jerome Grimes on April 10, 2017, together
with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Grimes is confined at the
Escambia County Jail in Pensacola, Florida.
Grimes’ pro se action appears to complain that on March 8, 2017, defendants “covertly”
filed a false bomb threat or “bomb topic of discussion” with the Rockville, Maryland Police
Department to obtain illegal arrest and extradition warrants and to conduct an illegal seizure of
Grimes’ personal property. Grimes generally references a case filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, discusses traffic court cases allegedly filed against
him in Montgomery County, Maryland, and mentions his arrest and extradition on bomb threats
and its connection to “covert post-World Trade Center (WTC) terrorism against small business
owners seeking to do business with the WTC…” ECF No. 1, pp. 3-4. Grimes asks that criminal
charges be filed against defendants and that they be required to submit to a polygraph test. He
further asks that the bomb threat extradition be “quashed,” so that he can return to graduate
school, and that he be awarded damages. Id., p. 4-5
The only Montgomery County cases involving Grimes relate to traffic incidents
occurring in 2016.1 Further, the court has examined the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (“PACER”) involving federal cases. It takes judicial notice that Grimes is litigious and
has filed hundreds of cases in the federal courts. In Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No.
JSW(PR)-15-436 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the
Northern District of California noted that “[o]n May 18, 2000, this Court informed [Grimes] that
under the ‘three-strikes’ provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he generally is ineligible to proceed
in forma pauperis in federal court with civil actions filed while he is incarcerated.” (citing
Grimes v. Oakland Police Dep’t, Civil Action No. CW-00-1100 (N.D. Cal.). Judge White
further observed that “in 2003 alone [Grimes’] failure to pay the full filing fee and to state
cognizable claims for relief had resulted in the dismissal of approximately thirty-six actions
under § 1915(g).” Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No. JSW(PR)-15-436. at ECF No. 4.
Further, in 2007, United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of
California observed that “[t]he Court had routinely granted [Grimes]leave to amend to pay the
full filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief but he has habitually failed to do so. For
example, in 2003 alone Plaintiff's failure to comply resulted in the dismissal of approximately
thirty-six actions under § 1915(g).” See Grimes v. Wan, et al,. Civil Action No. CW (PR)-071
The court has examined the court docket for Montgomery County, Maryland,
which reflects Grimes having been cited for several traffic violations to include failure to display
his license to uniform police on demand, driving without a required license and authorization,
driving on a revoked out-of-state license, driving while license is suspended, driving on a
suspended out-of-state license, failure to attach vehicle registration plates at front and rear,
failure to display registration card upon demand by police, and driving without current
registration plates and validation tabs. State v. Grimes, Citation Nos. 16PODHH, 16QODHH,
16RODHH, 16SODHH, 16TODHH, 16VODHH, 26WODHH, & 16XODHH (District Court For
Montgomery County); see http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquirySearch.jis.
1726 (N.D. Cal.). Additionally, in the Western District of Louisiana, the District Court noted
that Grimes has “filed more than 350 complaints and appeals [, and] [t]hree or more of them
have been dismissed as frivolous.” See Grimes v. Ms. Lewis, et al., Civil Action No. EEF-MLH12-3159 (W.D. La.).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a prisoner is prohibited from filing a civil action if he "has, on 3
or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Given Grimes’ filing history in the federal courts, he is barred under § 1915(g) from
filing prisoner complaints in forma pauperis unless he can aver that he is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. The instant complaint is rambling and incoherent, and Grimes does
not allege that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Grimes is forewarned that
should he attempt to file future civil rights actions in this court, they must be accompanied by the
civil filing fee. Further, a complaint filed with an indigency application must establish that
Grimes is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.
Accordingly, Grimes’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied and his
complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice by separate Order.
Date: May 3, 2017
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?