Mejia v. Smith et al

Filing 37

ORDER: Count I (Mejia's claim against Judge William E. Smith) is DISMISSED. Counts VIII, IX, X, and XI (as to "unknown marshals") remain in the case, pending service on the marshal defendants as directed in the attached order. -- Pl aintiff has 60 days from the date of this order (that is, by May 20, 2013) to provide the names and the appropriate address for service of the unknown marshals to the clerk's office. (Plaintiff is further instructed that all future pleadings, motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or their attorney(s) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)). So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (NH) on 3/21/2013. (Duhamel, John) Modified on 3/22/2013 to note that a copy of the instant order was forwarded to Plaintiff via first-class mail on 3/22/2013 to Plaintiff's address as listed on the docket. (Duhamel, John).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Edward Mejia
aka Jose Maldonado
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-449-JD

William E. Smith, et al.
0 R D E R

Edward Mejia, who is also known as Jose Luis Maldonado,
brought a civil rights action against a federal judge, the warden
and officers at the Wyatt Detention Center, and "unknown" United
States Marshals, arising from events that occurred in February of
2011 during his trial on drug charges.

Although Mejia is a

prisoner and proceeding in forma pauperis, no preliminary review
was conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) and § 1915A
before the named defendants were served. 1

The state defendants'

motion to dismiss has been granted, and all claims against the
state defendants are dismissed.

The court now reviews the

remaining claims against William E. Smith and the unknown
marshals under§§ 1915(e) (2) and 1915A.

1

Mejia included unnamed United States marshals as
defendants, but they have not been served.

Standard of Review
Under

§

1915A, the court reviews the claims alleged in a

complaint filed by a prisoner in which he seeks redress from a
government employee and will dismiss any claim that "is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted" and that "seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief."

§

1915A (b) .

Section 1915 (e) (2)

applies to plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis.

The

court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that-- .

the action .

is frivolous or malicious;

to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or []

[]

fails

seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief."

A.

§

1915 (e) (2) (B).

Claim Against William E. Smith
Mejia alleges that District Court Judge William Smith

ordered the Wyatt Detention Center to have Mejia brought to the
courthouse for his criminal trial.

Mejia alleges that he was

under a suicide watch at the time and that removing him from
Wyatt violated the suicide watch.

He further alleges that Judge

Smith had "personal knowledge and involvement in" Mejia being
beaten in the process of bringing him to the courthouse.
seeks five million dollars from Judge Smith.
2

He

Judges are immune from liability for damages based on their
actions taken within their judicial function.

Pierson v. Ray,

386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Knowlton v. Shaw, 704 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
Cir. 2013).

Acts taken within the judicial function, which are

entitled to immunity, are not precisely defined but most clearly
apply to decisions made in the course of adjudicating a case.
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226-28 (1988).

A judge who

orders officers to bring someone into the courtroom for purposes
of a pending case is acting within the judicial function.
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991).

Further, judicial

immunity applies despite allegations of bad faith and malice.
Id. at 11.
Judge Smith was acting within the judicial function when he
had Mejia brought to the courthouse to attend his criminal trial.
Mejia's allegations about Judge Smith's "personal" involvement in
the circumstances that caused Mejia to be injured in the course
of being brought to the courthouse are frivolous.
such allegations do not preclude immunity.

In addition,

Because Judge Smith

is entitled to judicial immunity, Mejia's claim against him is
dismissed.

3

B.

Unknown Marshals
In Counts Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven, Mejia alleges that

three unknown marshals, along with other additional unknown
marshals, transported him from Wyatt to the courthouse and
grabbed him, when they reached the courthouse garage, to pull him
out of the transport van.

Mejia alleges that because he was

mentally unstable he did not understand why that happened and
went rigid.

Mejia further alleges that the marshals then "began

to beat and brutalize [Mejia] with excessive force."

In the

altercation, Mejia suffered injuries to his face.
In the context of a detained or incarcerated person,
excessive force occurs when officers use force "maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm" rather than in a "good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline:"
U.S. 1, 7 (1992).

Hudson v. McMillian, 503

To decide whether the amount of force used was

excessive, the court must consider the officers' need for force
in light of the amount of force applied, the extent of any injury
the plaintiff suffered, the threat that the officers reasonably
perceived, and the efforts made to use less force.
Taking his allegations in the light most favorable to him,
Mejia alleges that although he resisted the marshals' efforts to
remove him from the van, the amount of force the officers used
exceeded what was necessary.

He alleges that his face was
4

injured.

For purposes of preliminary review/ Mejia has alleged

claims for excessive force against the unknown marshals.
Ordinarily/ the court would direct service of the complaint
on the defendants.

See 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(d).

Service cannot be

completed/ however/ because Mejia has not identified the marshals
whom he alleges used excessive force against him.

To complete

service/ therefore/ Mejia must find the names and addresses of
the marshals who participated in the incident on February 23r
2011

1

when Mejia was being removed from the van at the courthouse

in Rhode Island.

Mejia can contact the United States Marshals

Service in Rhode Island/ 202-307-9100
assigned to that duty on February 23

1

1

to ask which marshals were
2011

1

and to request an

appropriate address for service.
As soon as Mejia obtains the names and an appropriate
address for service of the unknown marshals/ he is directed to
provide that information to the clerk of court.

He shall have 60

days from the date of this order to provide the names and the

appropriate address for service of the unknown marshals to the
clerk 1 s office.

Service then must be completed within 120 days

from the date of this order unless an extension of time is
requested and granted.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

5

When the clerk's office receives the names and address or
addresses from Mejia, the clerk's office is directed to complete
and issue a summons form for each of the marshal defendants
identified by Mejia and to forward the summonses along with
copies of the complaint (doc. no. 1), the order issued on
December 17, 2012 (doc. no. 29), and this order to the United
States Marshal's office to complete service.
4(c) (3).

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

The United States marshals shall complete service as

provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e).
Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, motions,
notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on the
defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or
their attorney(s) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5 (b).

6

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Count I is dismissed.

Counts

Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven remain in the case, pending service
on the marshal defendants as is directed in this order.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
(Sitting by designation.)
March 21, 2013
cc:

Leslie D. Parker, Esquire
T. David Plourde, Esquire
Jeffrey .K. Techentin, Esquire
Edward Majia, pro se
: