United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 20, 2017, Plaintiff Anthony Quintin Kelly, who is
currently confined at the North Branch Correctional
Institution, filed this 42 U.S.C. S 1983 civil rights action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, monetary and punitive damages against the State
of Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland State's Attorney
John McCarthy, and Assistant State's Attorney Kathy
Knight. He alleges that he was subject to malicious
prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment when
Defendants acted with "evil motive" or
"callous[ness]" to his constitutional rights by
indicting, prosecuting, and sentencing him. ECF No. I.
Although Kelly claims his Complaint was accompanied by a
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, no indigency
motion was attached to the filing. The Complaint shall
nonetheless be summarily dismissed.
state court docket shows that in October of 2002, Kelly was
charged with first-degree rape, first-degree assault, and use
of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of
violence in Slale v. Kelly, Case No. 96433 (Cir. Ct.
for Montgomery Cnty.). In May of2003, he was charged with
first degree rape and robbery with a dangerous and deadly
weapon in Slale v. Kelly, Case No. 97760 (Cir. Ct.
for Montgomery Cnty.). Also in May of 2003, he was charged
with two counts of murder, first-degree burglary, robbery
with a dangerous and deadly weapon, two counts of use of a
firearm in the commission of a felony/violent crime,
second-degree burglary, and theft in State v. Kelly,
Case No. 97749C (Cir. Ct. for Montgomery Cnty.). At the
conclusion of pre-trial hearings, on June 3, 2004, Kelly was
declared incompetent to stand trial in all three cases. On
February 5, 2008, however, the Circuit Court determined that
Kelly was competent to stand trial in all three cases. On
June 11, 2008, a jury found Kelly guilty by a jury of
first-degree rape, first-degree assault, and use of a handgun
in the commission of a felony or crime of violence in
State v. Kelly, Case No. 96433. On
July 2, 2008, a jury found him guilty of first-degree rape in
State v. Kelly, Case No. 97760C. On August 4, 2008,
a jury found Kelly guilty of two counts of first-degree
murder, first-degree burglary, armed robbery, and two counts
of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of
violence in State v. Kelly, Case No. 97749C. On
September 8, 2008, Kelly was sentenced in all three cases to
four consecutive life sentences plus additional twenty- and
eighty-year consecutive terms. Kelly noted apw se
appeal from all three judgments of conviction to the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland. On July 10, 2009, the appeals
were dismissed on grounds of non-compliance with the rules of
appellate procedure. Kelly's request for further review
of the dismissal of his appeal was denied by the Court of
Appeals of Maryland on July 21, 2009. His reconsideration
request was denied by the Court of Special Appeals on August
31, 2009. See
Complaint for damages may not proceed for a number of
reasons. First, his claim against the prosecutors is not
colorable. Both McCarthy and Knight are immune from
Kelly's S 1983 claims for damages. A prosecutor is a
quasi-judicial officer who enjoys absolute immunity when
performing prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative or
administrative, functions. See Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976); Springmen v.
Williams, 122 F.3d 211, 212-13 (4th Cir. 1997);
Lyles v. Sparks, 79 F.3d 372, 376777 (4th Cir. 1996).
Decisions regarding whether and who to prosecute fall within
those prosecutorial functions.
a § 1983 lawsuit may not be filed against the State of
Maryland. Neither a state nor an agency of a state is a
“person” within the meaning of42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65 & 70-71 (1989). Moreover,
the State of Maryland is immune from liability under the
Eleventh Amendment from a S 1983 suit in federal court
without regard to the nature of the relief sought. See
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 101-11 (1984); CM v. Oliva, 226 F.3d 198,
201 (3rd Cir. 2000). 
to the extent that Kelly's civil rights claim raises a
challenge to the constitutionality of his incarceration, it
is not appropriately before the Court. Under Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) a claim
challenging a prosecution is barred, as a judgment in
Kelly's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his criminal convictions. See also Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
aforementioned reasons, Kelly's Complaint shall be
dismissed for the failure to state a claim.
To the extent that Kelly's
civil rights claim for damages raises a challenge to the
constitutionality of his incarceration, it is not
appropriately before the Court. Under Heck v.
Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) a claim for
damages challenging a prosecution is barred, as a judgment in
Kelly's favor ...