United States District Court, D. Maryland
RYAN DARK WHITE, #59130-037 Plaintiff.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS ROD ROSENSTEIN WARDEN DONNA HANSEN LARRY HOGAN MARTIN O'MALLEY UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, 1-200 Defendants.
K. Bredar United States District Judge
October 6. 2015. a criminal complaint was filed against Ryan
Dark White. Thereafter, he was convicted of one count of
felon in possession of ammunition and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
White was sentenced to a 27-month term, with three
years" supervised release, and ordered to pay a $100.00
special assessment. Sentencing occurred on July 28. 2016 and
judgment was entered that same day. See United States v.
White, Criminal No. J KB-15-0545 (D. Md.).
April 22. 2016. White was charged with one count of health
care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 1347. On July 28,
2016. he was convicted and sentenced to a 27-month term,
concurrent with the sentence imposed on his possession
conviction and three years of supervised release, and ordered
to pay a $100.00 special assessment and $105, 991.00 in
restitution. Judgment was entered on July 29, 2016. See
United States v. While, Criminal No. JKB-16-0172 (D.
Md.). No appeal was filed in either criminal case.
17, 2017. White, who is currently confined at the Federal
Correctional Complex -Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania,
filed this fee-paid, self-represented complaint for damages
and the expungement of his convictions. He seeks class action
certification on behalf of himself and other prisoners who
were and are pre-trial detainees at the Chesapeake Detention
Facility ("CDF") in Baltimore. Maryland from 2005
to the present. White alleges that the cubicles and rooms
used by detainees at CDF to hold conferences with their
attorneys have "paper thin" walls and conversations
between the detainees and their attorneys may be overheard.
ECF No. 1. pp. 4, 6. White claims that prosecutors and their
agents have heard all communications between detainees and
their attorneys and have recorded the conversations for use
against federal defendants in their judicial proceedings to
"coerce" criminal defendants to enter guilty plea
agreements. Id., pp. 4 & 7.
seemingly asserts that the privilege of the attorney-client
conversation was violated due to this "illegal
surveillance" when communications between detainees and
their attorneys were used to prosecute federal defendants. He
raises claims under the Fourth. Fifth, and Sixth
Amendments. Id., pp. 8-10.
as White seeks leave to obtain class certification, his
request shall be denied. White must prove that he has met the
requirements of numerosity. commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. and a class
action can be maintained only if "the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
Self-represented plaintiffs are not favored as representative
parties in a class action, as they generally cannot represent
and protect the interests of the class fairly and adequately.
See Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Board. 160
Fed.Appx. 249, 249 n.l (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Oxendine v.
Williams. 509 F.2d 1405. 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ("it
is plain error to permit [anj imprisoned litigant who is
unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a
White invokes this court's diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. he has not met his burden of showing
that such jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To
the extent that his complaint presents a federal question
raised against federal and state actors, his cause of action
may be construed as an action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
as White may be raising Fourth. Fifth, and Sixth Amendment
claims going to the legality of his federal convictions, 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
plaintiffs 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.
convictions have not been overturned, invalidated or called
into question on direct appeal or by collateral review. Until
White's convictions are set aside, any civil rights
action based on the convictions and related matters will be
barred because of the holding in Heck v. Humphrey,
supra Any request for monetary damages is
premature. White is advised that should he wish to challenge
the constitutionality of his convictions, he may file the
appropriate 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, but must
do so within one year of the date his conviction became
reasons stated above, this court will dismiss the complaint
without prejudice. A separate Order follows.