United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
RAY D. HURT, Plaintiff
FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND-GREENBELT, Defendants
W. Grimm United States District Judge
above-entitled civil rights action was filed on July 11,
2016, Compl., ECF No. 1, together with a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Because Plaintiff appears to be
indigent, his motion will be granted. For the reasons that
follow, the complaint must be dismissed.
asserts that this Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial
on past civil rights claims filed in this court and later
appealed. Compl. 1. He alleges that in Civil Action
DKC-13-747, which he filed in March 2013 and appealed under
Case No. 13-7620, the courts improperly found that no genuine
dispute of material fact existed with respect to the
underlying claim that prison medical care providers failed to
diagnose the cause of his weight loss. ld. In
addition to the complaint, which seeks monetary damages and a
criminal investigation of Civil Action DKC-13-747, Plaintiff
attaches what appears to be a petition for writ of
certiorari. Pet, ECF NO.1-1.. In the attachment Plaintiff
addresses what he believes to be the evidence that supports
his allegation that the cause of his weight loss has not been
properly diagnosed. ld.
filed this complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant to
commence an action in this court without prepaying the filing
fee. To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the
statute requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous or
malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. 28 U.S.C. 99 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). This Court
is mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally construe
self-represented pleadings, such as the instant complaint.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating such a complaint, the factual allegations are
assumed to be true. Id. at 93-94 (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that this
court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege
facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir.
1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may
not "conjure up questions never squarely
presented."). In making this determination, "[t]he
district court need not look beyond the complaint's
allegations .... It must
hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally." White v. White, 886 F.2d 721,
722-723 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover,
the court shall dismiss a case at any time if the court
determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal (i)is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. 9 1915(e)(2)
instant complaint seeks damages against Defendants who are
immune from suit. The Courts are not "persons"
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 9 1983 which provides that
[e]very person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory . . . subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person
with the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). If Plaintiff were
permitted to amend the complaint to add as Defendants the
individual jurists he holds responsible for the alleged
erroneous handling of his cases, the complaint would still
fail because it is prohibited by the doctrine of judicial
immunity. See Forrester v. White,484 U.S. 219,
226-27 (1988) ("If judges were personally liable for
erroneous decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most
of them frivolous but vexatious, would provide powerful
incentives for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely
to provoke such suits."). Further appellate review of
a decision by a Circuit Court of Appeals is accomplished
through filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court. See U.S. Sup. Ct.
Rule 12. A separate civil action, such as the instant
complain, , is not the appropriate avenue of review.
this case is being dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
19l5(e), a "strike" must be issued. Plaintiff is
reminded that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be
granted in formapauperis status if he
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an ...