United States District Court, D. Maryland
JEROME L. GRIMES Plaintiff,
KARINA DIXON MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND, TRAFFIC AND CRIMINAL DIVISION LT. CAROLL C/O SAUL C/O DOE JANE OR JOHN DOE MAILROOM DEPUTY MONTGOMEY COUNTY, DEPT. OF CORR. AND REHAB (MCCF) Defendants.
Xinis United States District Judge
15, 2017, Jerome L. Grimes filed the above-captioned
complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1
& 2. Grimes, who is detained at the Montgomery County
Correctional Facility in Boyds, Maryland, filed his complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, Grimes claims that
he has been subject to false arrest and extradition warrant
that resulted in his illegal seizure and the search of his
private property. ECF No. 1, p. 1. His largely incoherent
averments in his complaint seemingly challenge the veracity
of warrants issued in a traffic case and assert claims of
being “framed up” by defendants. He seeks and
asks the Court to enjoin defendants continuing to act in
their professional capacities as well as and monetary and
punitive damages. Id., pp. 2-3.
also appears to take issue with the tampering of his legal
mail, which was returned to him by unnamed parties. He again
seeks injunctive relief and damages. ECF No. 1, pp. 4-7.
review of the state court docket reveals that eight
Montgomery County, Maryland cases involving Grimes relate to
traffic incidents occurring in 2016. The docket also reflects
that on February 26, 2017, a warrant was issued for Grimes on
counts of arson/threat and making a false statement with
regard to a destructive device. See State v. Grimes,
Case No. 5D00368618 (District Court for Montgomery County).
On May 11, 2017, the case was transferred to the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County. Grimes is represented by defense
counsel and a scheduling order and plea of not guilty have
been entered in the case. See State v. Grimes, Case
examination of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(“PACER”) reveals that Grimes has filed hundreds
of cases in the federal courts. In Grimes v. Haney, et
al., Civil Action No. JSW(PR)-15-436 (N.D. Cal.), United
States District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern
District of California noted that “[o]n May 18, 2000,
this Court informed [Grimes] that under the
‘three-strikes' provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) he generally is ineligible to proceed in forma
pauperis in federal court with civil actions filed while he
is incarcerated.” (citing Grimes v. Oakland Police
Dep't, Civil Action No. CW-00-1100 (N.D. Cal.)).
Judge White further observed that “in 2003 alone
[Grimes'] failure to pay the full filing fee and to state
cognizable claims for relief had resulted in the dismissal of
approximately thirty-six actions under § 1915(g).”
Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No.
JSW(PR)-15-436. at ECF No. 4. Similarly, in 2007, United
States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern
District of California observed that “[t]he Court had
routinely granted [Grimes]leave to amend to pay the full
filing fee and to state cognizable claims for relief but he
has habitually failed to do so. For example, in 2003 alone
Plaintiff's failure to comply resulted in the dismissal
of approximately thirty-six actions under §
1915(g).” See Grimes v. Wan, et al, . Civil
Action No. CW (PR)-07-1726 (N.D. Cal.). In the Western
District of Louisiana, the District Court noted that Grimes
has “filed more than 350 complaints and appeals [, and]
[t]hree or more of them have been dismissed as
frivolous.” See Grimes v. Ms. Lewis, et al.,
Civil Action No. EEF-MLH-12-3159 (W.D. La.). This court takes
judicial notice of these relevant and indisputable filings.
See Nolte v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 390 F.3d 311,
317 n. * (4th Cir. 2004).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a prisoner is prohibited from
filing a civil action if he “has, on 3 or more
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States
that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Given Grimes' filing history in federal court, he is
barred under § 1915(g) from filing prisoner complaints
in forma pauperis unless he can aver that he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The instant
complaint is rambling and unintelligible, and Grimes does not
allege that he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See Sayre v. King, 2014 WL
4414509, * 3 (N.D. W.Va. 2014) (prisoner's claim that he
was denied access to all of his legal materials does not rise
to the level of imminent danger of serious physical injury
satisfying § 1915(g) exception). He is forewarned that
should he attempt to file future civil rights actions in this
court, they must be accompanied by the civil filing fee.
Additionally, any complaint filed with an indigency
application must establish that Grimes is in imminent danger
of serious physical harm.
Grimes' motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be
denied and his complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice
by separate Order.
 The court has examined the court
docket for Montgomery County, Maryland, which reflects Grimes
was cited for several traffic violations, including the
failure to display his license to uniform police on demand,
driving without a required license and authorization, driving
on a revoked out-of-state license, driving while license is
suspended, driving on a suspended out-of-state license,
failure to attach vehicle registration plates at front and
rear, failure to display registration card upon demand by
police, and driving without current registration plates and
validation tabs. State v. Grimes, Citation Nos.
16PODHH, 16QODHH, 16RODHH, 16SODHH, 16TODHH, 16VODHH,
26WODHH, & 16XODHH (District Court For Montgomery
 To the extent that Grimes seeks
damages related to his confinement in pre-trial detention,
his claim is premature under Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck Court concluded that to
recover damages for an allegedly 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: (1) reversed on direct appeal, (2)
expunged by executive order, (3) declared invalid by a state
tribunal, or (4) called into question by a federal
court's issuance of a § 2254 writ. Heck, 512 U.S. at
486-87. The Supreme Court required that “when a state
prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district
court must consider whether a judgment in plaintiff's
favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his
conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”
Id. at 487. Courts have applied Heck to
suits filed by pretrial detainees. Green v. Dewitt,
Civil Action No. MBS-06-0626, 2006 WL 1074983, at *3 (D. S.C.
Apr. 20, 2006) (“Although the decision in Heck v.
Humphrey concerned a conviction, its rationale is also
applicable to pretrial detainees such as Plaintiff.”);
Hamilton v. Lyons,74 F.3d 99, 102-103 (5th Cir.
1996); Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task
Force,239 F.3d 892, 898 n. 8 (7th Cir. 2001); Smith
v. Holtz,87 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that a
claim challenging ...