United States District Court, D. Maryland
JEROME L. GRIMES Plaintiff,
MCP OFFICER ROBERT FARMER #2593 MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT MCPD Rockville Defendants.
XINIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
about August 11, 2017, a complaint and motion to proceed in
forma pauperis were filed by Jerome L. Grimes. ECF Nos. 1
& 2. Grimes, who is self-represented, is a patient at the
Springfield Hospital Center in Sykesville, Maryland. As best
as this court can discern from his writings, Grimes takes
issue with the “illegal intimidation” imposed
after he incurred traffic offenses which led to his
involuntary admission to a mental health facility. He accuses
the Montgomery County Police Department of failing to train
an officer to “tell the truth on all statements,
reports, and citations…” Grimes further alleges
that a Montgomery County Police officer failed to contact
dispatch to abort an automobile tow. ECF No. 1, pp. 6-8. He
seeks cumulative damages in the amount of $540, 000.00.
examination of the state court docket reveals there were
eight Montgomery County traffic cases involving Grimes in
2016. In addition, 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.
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, where
on July 12, 2017, Grimes pleaded guilty to one count of
telephone misuse and was sentenced to a three years
imprisonment, all suspended, with 105 days credit for time
served, and one year probation. State v. Grimes,
Case Number 131689C (Circuit Court for Montgomery County).
of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(“PACER”) reveals that Grimes has filed hundreds
of cases in federal court throughout the country. In
Grimes v. Haney, et al., Civil Action No.
JSW(PR)-15-436 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Judge
Jeffrey S. White 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 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 in forma pauperis 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
incoherent complaint, generously construed, directly
challenges Grimes' traffic citations in Maryland. He does
not allege that he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. The case as filed will not proceed. Grimes
is forewarned that should he attempt to file any future civil
rights action in this court, it must be accompanied by the
civil filing fee and 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.
 Grimes was cited for 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. See State v. Grimes, Citation Nos.
16PODHH, 16QODHH, 16RODHH, 16SODHH, 16TODHH, 16VODHH,
26WODHH, & 16XODHH (District Court For ...