Davis v. State of Maryland

• Decision Date: 22 December 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 16952.
• Parties: William Elwood DAVIS v. STATE OF MARYLAND.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

248 F. Supp. 951

William Elwood DAVIS v. STATE OF MARYLAND.

Civ. No. 16952.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

December 22, 1965.

William Elwood Davis, pro se.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

On or about November 22, 1965, Davis sent to the Clerk of this Court a paper entitled "William Elwood Davis, Petitioner, v. State of Maryland, Respondent", headed "Injunction", in which he sought release from his present confinement in the Baltimore City Jail on the grounds: "That the Maryland Judicial System is constituted, unconstitutionally with respect to the Federal constitution, and the Baltimore Grand Jury is constituted, unconstitutionally, with respect to the Maryland constitution; thus, the State's procedure, of indictment and trial are unconstitutional procedure, and is causing deprivation of Due Process and Equal Protection."

Under instructions from the Court, the Clerk returned the handwritten paper to Davis, and sent him the forms for "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" required to be used in this Court, as in other United States District Courts, by persons seeking release from State confinement. On November 29 Davis returned the paper to the Clerk with the prayer for release eliminated, so that the only prayer is "that an injunction be issued to halt the aforementioned unconstitutional procedures". The claimed "unconstitutional procedure" is the prospective trial of plaintiff. He was originally indicted on September 7, 1965, but reindicted on November 2, 1965, following the decisions of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965), and State v. Madison, Md., 213 A.2d 880 (1965). For a discussion of those cases see James Francis Smith v. Brough, Warden, D.Md., 248 F.Supp. 435 (1965), Daily Record, December 20, 1965.

Davis claims jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and has filed an affidavit supporting his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Aside from the fact that this is a suit against the State of Maryland itself, which has not consented to be sued, the Supreme Court recently stated in Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965):

"In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, the fountainhead of federal injunctions against state prosecutions, the Court characterized the power and its proper exercise in broad terms: it would be justified where state officers `* * * threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution * * *.' 209 U.S., at 156 28 S.Ct. at 441. Since that decision, however, considerations of federalism have tempered the exercise of equitable power, for the Court has recognized that federal interference with a State's good-faith administration of its criminal laws is peculiarly inconsistent with our federal framework. It is generally to be assumed that state courts and prosecutors will observe constitutional limitations as expounded by this Court, and that the mere possibility of erroneous initial application of constitutional standards will usually not amount to the irreparable injury necessary to justify a disruption of orderly state proceedings. In Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324, for example,

...