Grimes v. Montgomery County Police Department et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 8/14/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/14/17) Modified on 8/14/2017 (kns, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JEROME L. GRIMES

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLIICE
DEPARTMENT (MCPD)
OFFICER ROMAN, #5595
MCPD CHIEF OF POLICE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Defendants.

Civil Action No. PX-17-2125

*
*
*
*
*****

MEMORANDUM
On or about May 25, 2017, the complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis were
filed by Jerome L. Grimes in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ECF
Nos. 1 & 2. On June 23, 2017, United States District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ordered the
case transferred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. ECF No. 3. The complaint was
received for filing in this court on July 28, 2017. For reasons to follow, the complaint shall
summarily be dismissed and the indigency motion shall be denied.
Grimes was detained at the Montgomery County Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in Boyds, Maryland at the time he filed the complaint. He appears to take issue
with the validity of the arrest warrant “antedated” by a Montgomery County Maryland Police
Officer in a criminal case involving a “bomb threat.” He claims that an “extraditable” warrant
was issued on February 26, 2017, without judicial approval or telephonic evidence, in violation
of his due process rights. ECF No. 1, pp. 2 & 4. He seeks release from confinement and
expungement of his arrest on a telephonic bomb threat. Id. at p. 4.

A review of the state court docket reflects that on February 26, 2017, a warrant was
issued for Grimes on counts of arson/threat and making a false statement with regard to a
destructive device. See State v. Grimes, Case No. 5D00368618 (District Court for Montgomery
County). On May 11, 2017, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County. On July 12, 2017, a guilty plea was entered on one count of telephone misuse and
Grimes was sentenced to a three-year term, all suspended, with 105 days credit for time served.
A supervised period of one-year probation was imposed. See State v. Grimes, Case Number
131689C; http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquirySearch.jis.
Further, examination of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”)
reveals that Grimes 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 thirtysix actions under § 1915(g).” Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No. JSW(PR)-15-436. at
ECF No. 4. Similarly, 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

2

No. CW (PR)-07-1726 (N.D. Cal.). 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. EEFMLH-12-3159 (W.D. La.). This court takes judicial notice of these relevant and indisputable
filings. See Nolte v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 390 F.3d 311, 317 n. * (4th Cir. 2004).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a prisoner is prohibited from filing a civil action in forma
pauperis 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 federal court, 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 rambling complaint has been generously construed as a direct challenge to Grimes’ arrest
and extradition to Maryland. He 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, unless the complaint establishes 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: August 14, 2017

/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

3