Mesmer v. St. Mary's County et al, No. 8:2010cv01053 - Document 41 (D. Md. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 6/2/11 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/2/11. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : WILLIAM MESMER : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 10-1053 : ROBERT REZZA, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Several presently motions pending, filed by including Plaintiff a motion William Mesmer for preliminary a are injunction (ECF No. 36), a motion for a continuance (ECF No. 38), and a motion for discovery (ECF No. 39). rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. The court now See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, all three motions will be denied. I. Background1 Mesmer filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 28, 2010. In his original complaint, Mesmer asserted a variety of claims against several defendants involved in his March 2009 arrest for driving while intoxicated. Mesmer alleges that several Maryland State Police officers used excessive force in 1 This discussion of the facts presumes some familiarity with the three prior decisions in this case. See Mesmer v. Rezza, No. DKC 10-1053, 2011 WL 582578 (D.Md. Feb. 9, 2011); Mesmer v. St. Mary s County, No. DKC 10-1053, 2010 WL 4791884 (D.Md. Nov. 18, 2010); Mesmer v. St. Mary s Cnty., No. DKC 101053, 2010 WL 1881772 (D.Md. May 2, 2010). the course of that arrest. The troopers and several corrections officers at St. Mary s County Detention Center then purportedly denied him medical care for the injuries he supposedly suffered at the hands of the troopers. officers, and various cover the events up state Later, the troopers, corrections officials surrounding convicting Mesmer in state court. allegedly the assault conspired by to wrongfully In two prior decisions, the court dismissed many of Mesmer s original defendants and claims, leaving only claims for excessive force and denial of medical care against Maryland State Police troopers Robert Rezza and Roger Redmond. On April 12, 2011, Mesmer filed the present motion for a preliminary relief to injunction, proceed which with requests this civil immediate litigation injunctive without the unabated harassment of the St. Mary s County Circuit Court. (ECF No. 36, at 1). Public records indicate that Mesmer was recently charged with a violation of his probation stemming from the March 2009 drunk driving arrest. 18K0900495 (Md.Cir.Ct. reopened See State v. Mesmer, No. Apr. 6, 2011). Evidently, Mesmer was consequently incarcerated and he now requests his release. Neither of the two remaining defendants filed any response. Later, Mesmer filed a motion for a continuance and a motion for discovery. (ECF Nos. 38, 39). 2 II. Analysis A. Motion for Preliminary Injunction In his preliminary injunction motion, Mesmer asks this court to order his immediate release from jail and to enjoin St. Mary s County Circuit Court from further harassing him. No. 36). County (ECF At the time of his motion, authorities in St. Mary s had probation.2 apparently detained him for a violation of his For several reasons, Mesmer is not entitled to an injunction. First, federal courts generally should not interfere with ongoing state proceedings like those in which Mesmer is involved (that is, proceedings implicating an important state interest). See Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360, 363 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). This doctrine, called Younger abstention, recognizes that state courts are capable of deciding federal and constitutional issues without the meddling of federal courts. Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994). Although the doctrine began as a means to keep federal courts out of criminal proceedings, it has since expanded to reach certain civil and administrative actions. 2 See Emp rs Res. Mgmt. Co., It is unclear whether he remains incarcerated. If any present or future incarceration renders Mesmer unable to take depositions or otherwise conduct discovery, the parties should inform the court. 3 Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 n.7 (4th Cir. 1995); Carter v. Maryland Comm n on Med. Discipline, 639 F.Supp. 542, 545 (D.Md. 1986). proceedings. It quite obviously applies to quasi-criminal See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975). Abstention is justified here. A court should abstain from interfering in state proceedings if there is (1) an ongoing state judicial proceeding, instituted prior to any substantial progress in important, the federal substantial, or proceeding; vital that state (2) implicates interests, and (3) provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise the federal constitutional claim advanced in the federal lawsuit. Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 153 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982)). this case. original Each of those three circumstances is present in The probation revocation relates back to Mesmer s criminal conviction, Mesmer s present suit. which was initiated before See, e.g., United States v. Hawkins, 675 F.Supp.2d 617, 620 (E.D.Va. 2009); accord Milnes v. Samples, No. 88-7584, 1988 WL 105445, at *2 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 1988). state of interest Maryland in has preventing an important, violations of The substantial, and its laws; criminal vital the probation system serves that interest. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43- 44; accord Nivens, 319 F.3d at 154. And even though Mesmer 4 makes baseless allegations that the state courts are biased, 3 there is no real suggestion that the state courts will deny Mesmer an opportunity to raise his present complaints. there are no intervention. extraordinary circumstances Nivens, 319 F.3d at 154. Finally, justifying In the end, Mesmer s requested injunction plainly violates the spirit of the Younger doctrine, since he is trying to derail an ongoing probation revocation proceeding. Sarlund v. Anderson, 205 F.3d 973, 975 (7th Cir. 2000). Second, Mesmer must comply with the requirements of habeas corpus, which he has not done. Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner such as Mesmer who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate release. Young v. Nickols, 413 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted); accord Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1999). Circuit has The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth consistently quashed challenges imprisonment in the guise of other actions. 804 F.2d 838, 840 (1986). to state Leonard v. Hammond, Thus, no matter what label a prisoner affixes to his claim, a state prisoner s appeal to a federal 3 Mesmer maintains the state court system is biased against him because he is being incarcerated by [t]he VERY County that is being civilly litigated as defendants in this case. (ECF No. 36-1, at 2). St. Mary s County, however, is not a defendant in this suit. 5 court for release must meet the requirements for habeas relief. Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 378 (4th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289 (Mar. 7, 2011). Mesmer has not established that he has exhaustion requirements for habeas relief. 2254(b). court. He has not evidently exhausted satisfied See the 28 U.S.C. § remedies in state He has not established an absence of such remedies. And he has not described circumstances that render such process ineffective. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(ii). Nor do Mesmer s unsubstantiated accusations of bias provide any excuse for his failure to exhaust, as a habeas petitioner may not bypass the state courts simply because he thinks they will be unsympathetic to [his] claim. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 (1982). Without exhaustion, there is no right to relief. Third, Mesmer would not be entitled to relief even if the court considered injunction his motion standard. extraordinary remedy. A under the preliminary ordinary preliminary injunction is an Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm n, 575 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.2009), vacated on other grounds by 130 S.Ct. 2371, 176 L.Ed.2d 764 (2010) and reissued in relevant part on remand, 607 F.3d 355 (4th 2010). Cir. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: [1] that he is likely to succeed on 6 the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 364 (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). Plaintiff must make a clear showing of each of the four elements to obtain relief. Id. Plaintiff has not made a clear showing as to any of the four elements. He has not made any real showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying action; the sum and substance of his evidence principally consists of his own affidavit. He argues that continued incarceration would cause irreparable harm because he would be unable to continue this action, but such a claim is belied by the fact that he has filed several matters in this court since his incarceration. Neither the balance of the equities nor the public interest weighs in his favor, either. Indeed, ordering Mesmer s release would do harm to the coextensive interests of the state and the public in ensuring that probation while keeping the community safe. rehabilitates the offender United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 623 (4th Cir. 2007). Mesmer s motion for a preliminary denied. 7 injunction will be B. Motion for a Continuance Mesmer seeks a continuance of this action, evidently for several reasons. (ECF No. 38). First, he asks that the case be continued until a motion he filed in state court can be decided. Second, he argues that he needs another potential defendant. additional time to locate Third, he states that he has been surprised. Motions for continuances are more commonly seen in criminal cases. the One might view Mesmer s motion as a request to modify scheduling order, establish good cause. 6(b). in which case Mesmer would need to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. Alternatively, one might construe his motion as a motion to stay. In that case, the court would look to factors such as the length of the requested stay, the hardship that that the movant would face if the motion were denied, the burden a stay would impose on the nonmovant, and whether the stay would promote judicial economy by avoiding duplicative litigation. In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., No. JFM-04-564, 2011 WL 1527012, at *1 (D.Md. Apr. 20, 2011). Mesmer s motion would fail under either standard, as none of his state proffered court reasons motion does justifies not motion might concern events merit related a continuance. a continuance; Mesmer s while the to this case, the state court s decision on that motion will have no apparent impact on 8 this matter. The only question remaining in this action is whether two Maryland State Police troopers used excessive force on Mesmer and subsequently denied him medical care. The state court motion apparently concerns the validity of his state court conviction for driving while intoxicated, a matter not at issue here. The potential addition of another defendant also does not justify a continuance, as Mesmer has had more than enough time to conduct necessary discovery and amend his pleadings if he needs to do so (and in fact, discovery is ongoing). As for his claim that he has been surprised, it is not even clear what Mesmer is arguing. To the extent that he has learned new facts during the course of discovery, learning new facts is exactly the purpose discovery is intended to serve. The motion for a continuance will be denied. scheduling order remains in effect in The following accordance with the court s prior order (ECF No. 30): ¢ February 23, 2011: Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were required to be served on opposing parties. ¢ June 24, 2011: Depositions and other discovery must be completed. Interrogatories and requests for production of documents must be served on the opposing party early enough to allow a response before this deadline. ¢ June 24, 2011: Status report must be filed. ¢ July 25, 2011: Motions for summary judgment must be filed. 9 C. Motion for Discovery Mesmer filed a motion for discovery and inspection with the court asking the State of Maryland to furnish the ranks and photographs of two Maryland State Police officers. 39). (ECF No. The court has now explained on several occasions that discovery materials are not to be filed with the court. Nos. 30, 32, 35). See Local Rule 104.5. (ECF This motion will be denied for the same reason. It is worth noting that the State of Maryland is not a party to this lawsuit. Different procedures apply when seeking information from a third party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; accord Boukadoum v. Hubanks, 239 F.R.D. 427, 429 (D.Md. 2006). If Mesmer wants something from the State, he must follow those procedures. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Mesmer s motion for a preliminary injunction, motion for a continuance, and motion for discovery will all be denied. A separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
