United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Edward Conaway, a Maryland Division of Correction prisoner
housed at Western Correctional Institution, seeks money
damages against the Harford County, Maryland
Circuit Court judge who accepted his guilty plea for
second-degree assault and sentenced Conaway to two years of
incarceration. Conaway now states he did not commit the
assault by spitting on Harford County Deputy Bivens, and that
Bivens' statements against him were lies. ECF No. 1, p.
1. He further states that camera footage exists to show what
really happened. Id. In addition to the Complaint,
Conaway submitted a Motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (ECF 2),
which will be granted.
Conaway is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, this
Court must initially examine his claim to determine whether
it states a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §
l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii). The standard for such review is the same
as the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630. 633 (4th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, Conaway's Complaint "must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, [will] not suffice.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
this Court must allow liberal construction of a Complaint
filed by a self-represented litigant, see Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)), this Court is further
obliged by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to screen and dismiss any
prisoner complaint that is frivolous, malicious or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In deciding
whether a complaint is frivolous "[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. 1989). Under the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) a case "shall be dismissed at
any time if the court determines that- (A) the allegation of
poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal- (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief."
is seeking to sue a Maryland state judge for decisions made
in her capacity as a judge. This cause of action cannot be
maintained because it is prohibited by the doctrine of
judicial immunity. "If judges were personally liable for
erroneous decisions, the resulting avalanche of suits, most
of them frivolous but vexatious, would provide powerful
incentives for judges to avoid rendering decisions likely to
provoke such suits. The resulting timidity would be hard to
detect or control, and it would manifestly detract from
independent and impartial adjudication." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 226-27 (1988). As stated in
Forrester, most judicial mistakes or wrongs may be
corrected through "ordinary mechanisms of review, which
are largely free of the harmful side-effects inevitably
associated with exposing judges to personal liability."
Id. Conaway did not seek leave to appeal his guilty
plea, thus foregoing a mechanism of review; he may not,
however, seek such a review by way of a civil lawsuit.
Complaint shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e). Conaway is hereby advised that under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g) he will not be granted in forma pauperis status
if he has "on 3 or more prior 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." This dismissal constitutes Conaway's first
separate Order follows.
 Conaway also seeks immediate release
from incarceration. This request for relief lies in the
nature of habeas corpus, and is inappropriate in the context
of a civil rights action against the trial judge. Should
Conaway seek to overturn his conviction and sentence, he may
file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, using forms
available from the Clerk of Court, after exhausting state
appellate and post-conviction remedies.
 See State of Maryland v. Edward
Jerrell Conaway, Criminal No. 12-K-17-000053 (Cir. Ct.