Martin v. Maryland Courts et al, No. 8:2015cv02432 - 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. Maryland Courts et al Doc. 4 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES I>ISTRICT cOUinOlS1RICT OF HARYLANO FOR THE I>ISTRICT OF MARYLAND Soutliem Dh'isioll ZOl5AUG28 AIQ:02 * RICHARD MARTIN, CLER,'\'S OFi'iCi-' AT GREENBELT" BY * Plaintiff, * \'. * ,_,',TilT'" MARYLAND COURTS, et lI/., Case No.: G.III-IS-2.H2 * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * him following County. his December selt~represented. 26.2008 As a result of a criminal Montgomery sentenced arrest in Montgomery County. Maryland. Martin. who is on August 6. 2015. ECl' No. I. lie will be granted Icave to because the linancial affidavit that he has no source of incomc. tiled a pcrsonal injury action Maryland judges who lailed to dismiss criminal chargcs against tiled this Complaint proceed in forma pauperis * * OPINION Richard Martin. a residcnt of Boston. Massachusctts. against the Montgomcry * accompanying his Complaint indicates lOCI' NO.2. investigation and indictment. County Circuit C01ll1 to harassment to six months of incarceration.' Martin pleaded guilty in and ltllirth degrec burglary. tt))' which he "'as While serving his scntence at the Montgomcry County 1 Martin notes that he was released aHcr four months of incarceratioll. Ilis probation ended in 2014. ECF No. I at 78. The case is not listed on Maryland's electronic docket. Exhibits provided with Ihl: Complaint suggest the case or ,\fm:l'lal1d \". Richard A/arlill. No. I 12136. prosecuted in the Circuit COllrt for Montgomery County", Maryland. arose when a local dentist. Kim lloa Lam. complained that Martin was stalking her. ECF Nos. 1-148.: 1.15. Dockets.Justia.com Detention Center, Martin claims he was subjected ECF No. I at 7. He blames his conyiction time ofarrcst Maryland to ""a minor assault and some yerbal abuse.".2 until his release from detention on three mcmbers bench. and alleges that thcy are responsible battery, defamation. false imprisonmenL contacts that [he 1 endurcd" and all "oflcnsiye intcntional for multiple torts. including infliction of emotional ld at 16. He seeks $10 million in damages and the disbarment negligencc. County. assaulL distress. and of the named judicial It!. at 18, officers. This Complaint to commence possible S is filed under 28 U.S.c. 1915(a)( I). which permits an indigent litigant an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fcc. To guard against abuses of this priYilege. the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is fi'iyolous or malicious or that fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), In this contexL this Court is mindful of its obligation the pleadings of pro se litigants. and notes that a plaintifrs See Erickson \', Pan/lis. 551 U.S. 89.94 that a court can ignore a plaintiffs claim: a pro se complaint speculatiye Reg'l.!ail "must still contain suffieicnt 524 F, App'x outlined in the ComplainL 899,900 to liberally construc are assumed liberal construction to be true. does not mean nlcts .to raise a right to reliefaboye S the is plausible on its fllce.'" Adams \', SII'. '-'a. (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting as well as examine rights Yiolation under 42 V.S.c. S clear failure to allege facts that would set forth a cognizable leyel' and 'state a claim to rcliefthat All/h. allegations (2007). Nonethcless, V.S. 544. 555. 570 (2007)). This Court is thercf(Jre obligated 1 of the Montgomery from the Hell All. Corp. \', Tll'llIIIhly.550 to consider whether the Complaint both the tort claims is sufficient to state a eiYil 1983. Martin makes no claim of civil rights violations against the Maryland Courts or the three judges named in his Complaint. 2 Liberal construction of Martin's defense of absolute immunity status requires complete extends to '''oflicials protection thc statc or tederallevel. I'. docs not save it lium early dismissal. whose special functions or constitutional from suit. ... Gold''/ein \'. ,\fool::. 364 F.3d 205. 211 (4th Cir. are clearly among those oflicials Sparkman. 435 U.S. 349.355 (1978). Absolute who are cntitled to such immunity. immunity independencc and injustice to a litigant may result on occasion. of thc highest importance exercising thc authority apprchension to the propcr administration of.justicc 'it is a gcneral principle that a judicial officer. in vested in him. shall be Ii'ee to act upon his own convictions. of personal consequences to himself.''' immunity without ,\fir"l"s \'. Waco. 502 U.S. 9.10 (1991) (quoting Bradl"y \'. Fisher. 13 Wall. 335. 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872». settlcd that the doctrine of.iudicial with !'ier.llln ". Ray. 386 U.S. 547. 554 (1 'J6 7). and without tear of consequenccs:' untairness S"e scrves to bcnetit the public at large. "whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exereisc their functions "Although The Harlolt' r. Fil::J~eral".457 U.S. 800. 807 (1982». Judgcs. whether presiding at 2004) (quoting Slump Complaint is applicable Moreover. the law is well- to actions tilcd undcr 42 U.S.c. ~ 1983. Slump. 435 U.S. at 356. In dctermining the challcngcd whether a particular judgc is immune. action was "judicial" and whcthcr. at the time the challenged the judge had subject matter jurisdiction. "clear abscnce of all jurisdiction:' erroneous. malicious. the criminal Martin's indictmcnt inquiry must be made into whether action was taken. 51"" id Unless it can bc shown that a judge acted in the absolute or in cxcess of judicial immunity authority. exists even when the allcged conduct is Id. at 356-57. Clearly the adjudication against Martin. which resulted in a guilty plea. is judicial conduct. Thus. claims cannot procccd under ~ 1983. Martin's other tort claims tare no better. as they are time-harred. , ., Maryland's of general three-year statute of limitations for civil actions is most applicable to the case at bar. See Md. Code Ann .. Cts. & .Iud. Proc .. S 5-101. At the latest. Martin's claims against the judges would have accrued at the time of sentencing. which occurred on August 3. 2009. ECl' No. I at 2. Martin's request for equitable tolling. ECl' No. I at 2. based upon his inability to lind an attorney to represent him in a civil action against Defendants. is unavailing.-' Because Martin did not file the instant lawsuit before the limitations period expired. it is time-barred and cannot procced. Title 28 U.S.c. S 1915(e)(2) obligates federal courts to dismiss cases at (lny I;me if thc action is legally frivolous or malicious. fails to state a claim on which rclief may bc granted. or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief: For the reasons stated. this case is subject to dismissal. Martin's request to tile c1ectronic pleadings. Eel' NO.3. shall be denied as moot. A separate Order follows. Dated: August l.« A-~- 2015 GEORGE J. IIAZEL United States District Judge :; Martin's statement regarding equitable tolling because he \',:a5 "afraid" ofv,:hat the police might do ifhc took action against them. ECF No. I at 2. is not relevant to his claims against members ofMaryland"s hench. 4
]]>
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.
