United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
is Brian Tidmore’s Complaint alleging Defendants’
negligence and malpractice caused his “extended
incarceration, ” lost earnings, and “strain and
duress.” (ECF 1). As relief, he seeks compensation of
an unstated sum. Tidmore, who is presently incarcerated at
the Eastern Correctional Institution in Maryland, also filed
a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis which will be
granted for the purpose of preliminary screening of the
states he was in custody of the Georgia Department of
Corrections and incarcerated at the Wheeler CCA Correctional
Facility from May 2010 to May 2014. During this time, the
State of Maryland issued a detainer against him based on
charges filed in 2007. On July 1, 2010, his counsel, Ronald I.
Kurland, entered a demand in the Circuit Court for Wicomico
County for a speedy trial. Id.
asserts that on September 14, 2010, he and Warden Kemp signed
paperwork to extradite him to Maryland. Tidmore asserts that
he was “supposed to be transported to Maryland to stand
trial within 180 days starting 9/14/10, ” but was not
sent to Maryland until he was granted parole in Georgia on
May 6, 2014. Id. He complains nearly 3 years and 8
months passed between signing the paperwork and extradition
August 4, 2014, the Honorable Newton Jackson in the Circuit
Court for Wicomico County sentenced Tidmore to 20 years of
imprisonment, 13 suspended and no parole for the first 5
detailLoc=K. Tidmore states Judge Jackson observed that
Georgia officials had not forwarded the extradition form he
had Dated: September 14, 2010. Thus, Tidmore alleges that the
charges against him in Maryland should have been dismissed.
appealed his judgment of conviction and it was affirmed on
direct appeal by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland denied his request for
certiorari review. Tidmore’s Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief is under review in the Circuit Court
for Wicomico County. Id.
Court is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen
prisoner complaints and dismiss any claim that is frivolous,
malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. In making this determination, “[t]he district
court need not look beyond the complaint's
allegations.... It must, however, 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.
printed attachments filed with Plaintiff’s handwritten
Complaint suggest he is filing this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983, however, is not a
“source of substantive rights.” Lambert v.
Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 2000). To the
extent Tidmore intends to raise malpractice and negligence
claims, these causes of action arise under state, not
federal, law and the §1983 Complaint is dismissible for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
as Tidmore may raise federal claims cognizable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, they are not yet cognizable under
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In
Heck, the Supreme Court ruled:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for alleged
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid
by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for
damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence
that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under
§ 1983.... But if the district court determines that the
plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not
demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal
judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed
to proceed in the absence of some other bar to the suit.
Maryland conviction has not been overturned, invalidated or
called into question on direct appeal by issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. ...