Kelly v. State of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2008)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsKelly v. State of Maryland, 4th Cir. (2008)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7576
ANTHONY KELLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND; ROBERT WISNER-CARLSON,
Acting Clinical Director; CLIFTON T. PERKINS
HOSPITAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-7634
ANTHONY KELLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MARYLAND; LILLIAN WANG, Librarian;
SHEILAH DAVENPORT, CEO,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:07-cv-02601-AW; 8:07-cv-02600-AW)
Submitted:
January 9, 2008
Decided:
January 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Kelly, who has been involuntarily committed to
Marylands Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital Center (the Center)
after
being
found
not
competent
to
stand
trial,
appeals
the
district courts dismissal of two actions he filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983 (2000).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. 07-7576
Kellys first complaint asserted due process and equal
protection violations arising from statements the director of the
Center made in the course of Kellys competency hearing.1
Finding
that two defendants the State of Maryland and the Center were
not amenable to suit under 1983, the district court dismissed the
claims against them.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the
district court dismissed Kellys remaining claims as frivolous
because they espoused an indisputably meritless legal theory.
We have reviewed the record and conclude the district
court did not err in dismissing Kellys claims against the State of
Maryland and the Center.
A cause of action under 1983 requires
the deprivation of a civil right by a person acting under color
Kelly also asserted several state common law claims,
including libel. After the district court dismissed the claims on
which federal jurisdiction was based, it exercised its discretion
under 28 U.S.C. 1367 (2000) to decline jurisdiction over the
state law claims. To the extent that Kelly appeals the district
courts decision as to the state law claims, the district court did
not err.
- 3 -
of state law.
42 U.S.C. 1983.
It is now well settled that a
state cannot be sued under 1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept of State
Police,
([N]either
491
U.S.
58,
71
(1989)
State
nor
its
officials acting in their official capacities are persons under
1983.).
This rule applies to States or governmental entities
that are considered arms of the State for Eleventh Amendment
Id. at 70.
purposes.
Therefore, because the Center was properly
considered an arm of the State of Maryland, it cannot be sued under
1983 either.
See Will v. Michigan Dept of State Police, 491
U.S. 58, 65-70 (1989); Foremost Guaranty Corp. v. Community Sav. &
Loan, Inc., 826 F.2d 1383, 1386-88 (4th Cir. 1987).
A district court has broad discretion to dismiss a
complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious within the
meaning of 1915(d).
Cir. 1989).
an
See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722 (4th
An action is frivolous or malicious if it is based on
indisputably
meritless
legal
theory
contentions are clearly baseless.
or
if
the
factual
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32-33 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the
district
frivolous.
courts
dismissal
of
Kellys
remaining
claims
as
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.
Kelly v. State of Maryland, 8:07-cv-02601-AW (D.
Md. Oct. 17, 2007).
- 4 -
II.
07-7634
Kellys second complaint alleged due process and equal
protection violations arising from the Center librarians refusal
to perform legal research for Kelly.2
The district court dismissed
Kellys complaint on the grounds that the State of Maryland was not
amenable
to
suit
under
1983
and
the
complaint
failed
adequately state claims against the remaining Defendants.
to
We have
reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find no
reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Kelly v. State of Maryland, No. 8:07-cv-02600AW (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2007).
We dispense with oral argument in both appeals because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Kelly also asserted several state common law claims,
including negligent infliction of emotional distress. After the
district court dismissed the claims on which federal jurisdiction
was based, it exercised its discretion under 1367 to decline
jurisdiction over the state law claims. To the extent that Kelly
appeals the district courts decision as to the state law claims,
the district court did not err.
- 5 -
