Taccino v. Lindsay

CAROL TACCINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAWN LINDSEY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLR-22-226

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 28, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

George L. Russell, III United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs Carol and William Taccino's Complaint and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The Motion is ripe for disposition and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion but will otherwise dismiss the Complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff Carol Taccino was involved in a car accident in Cumberland, Maryland and was later criminally charged for obstruction of justice and making a false statement to the police for her actions following the crash. (Statement Charges at 3, ECF No. 1-1).^[1] Officer Joseph Ashby responded to the scene of the crash to investigate and collect information from Mrs. Taccino and the other driver, Alyssha Rodrigues. (Id.). Ashby determined that Mrs. Taccino “was driving through the parking lot across the parking spaces and not in the travel lanes of the parking lot.” (Id.). Ashby therefore concluded that Mrs. Taccino was at fault and cited her for negligent driving. (Id.).

After she received the citation, Mrs. Taccino called Sgt. E. Bonner several times “demanding that the other driver be charged and that her citation be voided.” (Id.). Bonner told Mrs. Taccino that the investigation was complete and that he agreed with Ashby's conclusions, i.e., that Mrs. Taccino was at fault. (Id.). On March 17, 2018, Mrs. Taccino called Lt. J. Burt claiming that Rodrigues did not have insurance at the time of the accident. (Id.). Burt contacted Rodrigues' insurance company, verified that her insurance was valid, and informed Mrs. Taccino that the insurance was active. (Id.).

On April 5, 2018, Rodrigues came to the police station after receiving notice that she needed to pick up a criminal summons. (Id. at 3). An officer at the station reviewed the application for criminal summons and discovered that Mrs. Taccino had filed it on March 29, 2018, after the crash had been investigated and after Burt told her that Rodrigues had valid insurance. In her application, Mrs. Taccino stated that Rodrigues “failed to provide legal valid proof of insurance.” (Id.).

After investigating the criminal summons application, Officer Robert Martin contacted Rodrigues' insurance yet another time to confirm that her insurance was valid at the time of the accident. (Id.). On April 5, 2018, Martin found that “it [was] evident that Carol Taccino fraudulently filed for charges through the District Court on March 29, 2018.” (Id.). Martin arrested Mrs. Taccino and charged her with making a false statement to the police and obstruction ofjustice. (Id. at 1). On January 23, 2019, a jury in the Circuit Court for Allegany County found Mrs. Taccino guilty of both charges and she received a sixtyday suspended sentence. See State v. Taccino, No. C-01-CR-18-000460 (Cir.Ct.Md. 2018).

B. Procedural History

Self-represented Plaintiffs Carol and William Taccino filed this lawsuit on January 31, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The claims are at times difficult to parse. The Taccinos first identify Defendants Ashby, Martin, and the City of Cumberland and allege: false arrest against Martin (Count I); conspiracy against Martin (Count II); use of unnecessary excessive force under the Fourth Amendment against Ashby (Count III); conspiracy in violation of their Sixth Amendment Rights against Martin (Count IV); and conspiracy against Ashby (Count V). (Compl. ¶¶ 13-19).

The Taccinos then identify Defendants the “Allegany County Local Government, ” State's Attorney Michael O. Twigg, Assistant State's Attorney Jacqueline Phillips, and Allegany County Attorney T. Lee Beeman, and allege: conspiracy against Twigg (Count VI);^[2] violation of their Sixth Amendment Rights against Twigg (Count VII); conspiracy against Phillips (Count VIII); violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights against Phillips (Count IX); conspiracy against Beeman (Count X); obstruction of justice against Beeman (Count XI); and violation of the Maryland Code of Ethics against Twigg, Phillips, and Beeman (Count XII). (Id. ¶¶ 20-26).

The Taccinos next allege claims against Jennifer Clem, whom they identify as “a commissioner of the District Court of Maryland, ” for: conspiracy (Count XIII); fraud (Count XIV);^[3] obstruction of justice (Count XV); and violation of their Sixth Amendment Rights (Count XVI). (Compl. ¶¶ 27-30).

Next, the Taccinos allege claims against Dawn Lindsey, the Clerk of the Court for the Circuit Court for Allegany County, for: conspiracy (Count XVII); obstruction of justice (Count XVIII); and violation of their Sixth Amendment Rights (Count XIX). (Id. ¶¶ 3133).

Finally, the Taccinos assert claims against the Honorable W. Timothy Finan, retired Judge for the Circuit Court for Allegany County, and allege: conspiracy (Count XX); violations of their Sixth Amendment Rights (Count XXI); and violations of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings and Rules Article (Count XXII). (Id. ¶¶ 34-36).

The Taccinos seek compensatory damages and punitive damages. (Id. ¶¶ 37-53). Simultaneous with their Complaint, the Taccinos filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) permits indigent litigants to commence an action in this Court without prepaying the filing fee. To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff fails to state a claim in this context where the complaint does not “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, 570 (2007)). This Court is mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally construe self-represented pleadings, such as the instant Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating such a complaint, the factual allegations are assumed to be true. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56).

Liberal construction does not, however, permit this Court to ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Though [self-represented] litigants cannot, of course, be expected to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision ideally evident in the work of those trained in law, neither can district courts be required to conjure up and decide issues never fairly presented to them.”). In making this determination, “[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, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989).

B. Analysis

1. William Taccino's Claims

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff William Taccino does not have standing to join Mrs. Taccino's Complaint. “[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art[icle] III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, ” and further, “that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). To demonstrate constitutional standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) that he or she “suffered an ‘injury in fact'-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural' or ‘hypothetical'”; (2) that there is a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant”; and (3) “it must be ‘likely,' as opposed to merely ‘speculative,' that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (cleaned up). The injury need not be actualized. Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008). A party facing prospective injury has standing to sue where the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct. Id.

Here, Mr. Taccino has failed to demonstrate that he has standing to bring this lawsuit. He was not party to any of the factual allegations underlying the Complaint.

Moreover, the Complaint does not include any allegations that Mr. Taccino suffered any injury as a result of the Defendants' actions. (See generally Compl.). Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Taccino has not demonstrated that he has standing in this action. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all claims raised on his behalf.

2. Carol Taccino's Claims

Carol Taccino raises multiple claims for conspiracy, false arrest malicious prosecution, excessive force in...