Tilghman v. Hayward et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/10/2018. (c/m 10/11/2018 rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRADFORD TILGHMAN,
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
KELLER, et al.,
*
Defendants
Civil Action No. GJH-IS-S34
*
***
BRADFORD TILGHMAN,
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
KENDRA HA YW ARD, et al.,
*
Defendants
Civil Action No. GJH-IS-S35
*
***
MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned
cases, filed on March 22, 20 IS, by Bradford Lesley Tilghman, a
self-represented pretrial detainee, seek his release from confinement, dismissal of state criminal
charges pending against him, expungement of his record, and monetary damages. ) ECF Nos. I.
Plaintiff has also filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.2) which shall
be granted.
The complaints arise from the same event, raise similar claims, and seek identical
relief. As such, consolidation for review purposes is appropriate.
Plaintiff alleges he was denied his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
when he was arrested, released, and then rearrested on the same charges. Id. He claims that
1 Plaintiff raised identical claims in the consolidated matter of Tilghman v. Prince Anne Police Dept .• et al.,Civii
Action No. 17-3692 (D. Md.). Those cases were dismissed on March 16, 10 18. It appears Plaintiff filed the instant
cases prior to receiving the memorandum and order dismissing the previously filed cases.
under Maryland law the second arrest was impermissible and that the first arrest should have
been expunged from his records. Id. Additionally, he alleges in Civil Action No. GJH-18-835,
that Assistant State's Attorney Kendra Hayward and defense attorney Art Mcffadden conspired
to "read the wrong law to the judge" resulting in his continued confinement.
reasserts his claim that his arrest, release, and rearrest were improper. Id.
ECF No. I. He
Plaintiff is currently
confined in the Queen Anne's County Detention Center awaiting trial on criminal charges
pending against him which are the subject of the instant cases. ECF Nos. I; see also Maryland
Judiciary Case Search, Slale v. Tilghman, Case Nos. C 19CRI7000269
and C19CR17000276,
Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland.2
In Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the Supreme Court held that claims
challenging the legality of a conviction are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C.
and until the conviction
is reversed, expunged,
invalidated,
S
1983 action unless
or impugned
containing such claims must therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
and complaints
See also Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (Heck precludes claims that necessarily imply the invalidity of
the judgment). These cases were filed as civil rights actions.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages, his claims for damages cannot be entertained by this court as he has not yet
stood trial.
Additionally, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's claims against prosecutors Gamer and
Hayward, and defense attorney McFadden are individually subject to dismissal.
Prosecuting attorneys are quasi-judicial
officers who enjoy absolute immunity when
performing prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative or administrative functions.
Pachlman, 424 U.S. 409 422-23 (1976).
See Imbler v.
Absolute immunity is designed to protect judicial
process, thus the inquiry is whether the prosecutor's actions are closely associated with judicial
2
http://casesearch.couns.state.md.us/casesearch/inquirvSearch.;is
2
(last visited April 2, 2018).
process. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 479 (1991) (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 423-23).
The
decision as to "whether and when to prosecute" is "quasi-judicial," therefore, defendants Gamer
and Hayward enjoy absolute immunity under the facts alleged by Plaintiff. See Lyles v. Sparks,
79 F.3d 372 377 (4th Cir. 1996).
As to Plaintiffs
defense attorney, McFadden, privately retained attorneys do not act
under color of state law even if they are appointed by the court. See Deas v. Polts, 547 F.2d 800,
800 (4th Cir. 1976); see also Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (4th Cir. 1980).
In
addition, public defenders do not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's
traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Polk Cty v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312,453-54
(1981).
While an attorney who conspires with a state official to violate
constitutional rights does act under color of state law, evidence of the conspiracy is required. See
Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984); Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (I Ith Cir.
1984) (plaintiff must make more than naked assertion of conspiracy).
As such, Plaintiffs
complaint is subject to dismissal as to Gamer, Hayward and Mcffadden.
Plaintiffs request for dismissal of the charges against him and expungement of the record
is also not properly before this Court. Pretrial federal habeas relief is available under 28 U.S.c.
92241
if the petitioner
is in custody,
has exhausted
state court remedies,
circumstances exist that justify intervention by the federal court.
and special
See Dickerson v. Louisiana,
816 F. 2d 220, 224- 26 (5th Cir. 1987). Exhaustion is established where both the operative facts
and controlling legal principles of each claim have been fairly presented to the state courts. See
Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In the pretrial context,
federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction
3
over a claim that may be resolved
through trial of the merits or by other state procedures available for review of the claim. See
Braden v. 30'h Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973).
Special circumstances justifYing this Court's intervention do not exist where there are
procedures in place to protect petitioner's constitutional rights. See Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.
2d 437, 449 (3d Cir. 1975) (assertion of appropriate defense at trial forecloses pretrial federal
habeas relief); Drayton v. Hayes, 589 F. 2d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir. 1979) (double jeopardy claim
justified
pretrial federal habeas intervention
because constitutional
right claimed would be
violated if petitioner went to trial); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The alleged
errors raised by Plaintiff in the instant cases may be addressed by the trial court.
Thus, the
hybrid petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
A separate Order follows.
d:~-
GEORGE J. HAZEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?