Martin v. Baltimore City Police, No. 8:2015cv02430 - Document 4 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/28/2015. (c/m 8/28/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin v. Baltimore City Police Doc. 4 fiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES I)(STRICT COUKtllSTRICT OF HARYLAND fOR TIlE I)(STRICT Of MARYLAND SOllthem Dh'isioll 2015 AUG 28 A 10:0 I * RIel-lARD MAIHIN, CLERK'S OFFICE AT GREENBELT * Plaintiff, * fJt:PllTy * v. BY HAL TIMORE CITY POLICE, Case No.: G.JH-IS-2.BO * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Montgomery computers. following County police in searching * * tiled a personal injury action City Police Department. Martin's * OPINION Richard Martin. a resident of Boston. Massachusetts. against unnamed members of the Baltimore * alleging they assisted Baltimore apartment and seizing his ECF No. I at 13-14. The search and seizure occurred pursuant to a warrant issued Martin's December 26. 2008 arrest in Montgomery Martin. who is sell~represented. tiled this Complaint County. Maryland. on August 6. 2015. ECI' No. I. lie will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because the financial aflidavit accompanying his Complaint indicates that he has no source of income. ECI' NO.2. Martin indicates that he was maliciously County. Maryland indictment. State's Attorney's prosecuted by members of the Montgomery Oflice. As a result of a criminal investigation Martin pleaded guilty to harassment and and fourth degree burglary. for \\hich he was Dockets.Justia.com scntenced to six months of incarceration. Detention Center. Martin claims he was subjected I While serving his sentence at the Montgomery to "a minor assault and somc verbal abuse:,2 ECF No, I at 7, He blamcs his conviction and all"otTcnsivc time of arrest until relcase Irom dctcntion on the County prosecutors, City police otlicers Baltimore exeeuting a scarch warrant that led to the seizure of his computers. and conviction, of emotional termination including in lie implies that the Baltimore intentional inl1iction IcI. at 17, in the search of his apartment. the tiling Ice, To guard against the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is fri\'l)lous or that fails to state a claim on which reliefmav , - be l!ranted. 28 In this context. this Court is mindful of its obligation of pro se litigants, and notes that a plaintiffs allegations See Erickson \', Pardm, 551 U,S, 89,94 (2007). Nonetheless, that a court can ignore a plaintiff-s claim: a pro se complaint speculative County authorities It!. at 15-17. lie seeks $10 million in damages and an action in federal court without prepaying 1915(e}(2)(B}(i)-(ii). the pleadings the Montgomery is tiled under 28 U,S,c. ~ 1915(a)( I }, which permits an indigent litigant possible abuscs of this privilege, or malicious and further blames assault. battery, del~lIllation, false imprisonment. of all officers involved from the for injury eaused by tortious conduct arising li'01ll his arrcst distress, and negligence, This Complaint to commcnce responsible for assisting contacts that [hel endured" unnamed City pol icc arc thercfore County U.s.c. ~ . to liberally construe are assumed liberal construction to be truc, does not mean clear t~lilure to allege facts that would set limh a cognizable "must still eontain suftieient facts 'to raise a right to relief above the level' and 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its t~lce"" ,.JelallIs I'. SIl'. I'a. I Martin notes that he was released after four months of incarceration. !lis probntioll ended in ]014. ECF No. I at 78. The case is not listed on Maryland's electronic docket. Exhibits provided with the Complaint suggest the cnsc of ,Hm:\'luml v. RicharJ Alarlin. No. 112136. prosecuted in the Circuit C011l1 for Montgomery County. Maryland. arose when a local dentist. Kimlloa 2 Lam. complained that Martin was stalking her. ECF Nos. 1-14 & I-IS. Martin makes no claim of civil rights violations against the Baltimore City Police Department or its personnel. 2 Rel(IJail Auth.. 524 F. App'x 899. 900 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. \'. 7"rolllhly. 550 U.S. 544. 555. 570 (2007)). This Court is therefore ohligated to consider hoth the tort claims outlined in the Complaint. as well as examine whether the Complaint is surticient to state a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. Liheral construction of Martin's Complaint docs not save it Irom early dismissal under either theory of liahility. as it is time-barred. Maryland's general three-year statute of limitations tor civil actions is most applicahle to the case at bar. See Md. Code Ann .. Cts. & .Iud. I'roc .. ~ 5101. At the latest. Martin's claims against Baltimore City police ofticers would have accrued hy the time of sentencing. which occurred on August 3. 2009. ECI' No. I at 2. Martin's request lor equitable tolling based upon his inability to lind an attorney to represent him in a civil action is unavailingJ ECF No. I at 2. Because Martin did not lile the instant lawsuit hcti.)re the limitations period expired. it is time-harred and cannot proceed. Title 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2) obligates federal courts to dismiss cases at lillY tillle if the action is legally Irivolous or malicious. fails to state a claim on which relief may he granted. or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relicf. For the rcasons stated. this case is subjcct to dismissal. Martin's request to lile electronic plcadings. ECI' NO.3. shall be denied as moot. A separate Order lollows. Dated: August ,~- ~I2015 . GEORGE J. IIAZEL Unitcd States District Judge Martin"s statement regarding equitable tolling because he was "afraid" of what the Montgomery County Police Department might do ifhe took action against them. ECF No. I at 2. is not relevant to his claims againsl memhers of the Baltimore City police department. ~ .... :> 3
]]>
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.
