govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_25-cv-04276-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
JOSEPH BRIAN CLARK,   * 
 
 Plaintiff * 
 
v.  *  C iv. No. DLB-25-4276 
 
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.,  * 
 
 Defendants  * 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Joseph Brian Clark filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion 
to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Court now grants . ECF 1 & 2. Clark, who is currently 
incarcerated at the Maryland Correctional Institution-Hagerstown, is suing the State of Maryland, 
the Circuit Court for Washington County, and Judge Joseph S. Michael for what Clark claims is 
an illegal sentence entered in his state criminal proceedings. ECF 1, at 2. Specifically, Clark asserts 
that Judge Michael ordered that he not have any relationship with a female partner for one year 
after his release from prison, which Clark believes violates his reproductive rights. Id .  As relief, 
Clark seeks compensatory damages and dismissal of his state criminal case. Id. at 3. For the 
following reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) permits an indigent litigant 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, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief 
may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), 1915A(b). 
“[P]ro se filings are ‘h[e]ld to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 
lawyers.’” Folkes v. Nelsen, 34 F.4th 258, 272 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 
519, 520 (1972)). Accordingly, the Court must construe pro se pleadings liberally. Bing v. Brivo 
Case 1:25-cv-04276-DLB     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 1 of 3
2 
Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 618 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). But “liberal 
construction does not require [the Court] to attempt to ‘discern the unexpressed intent of the 
plaintiff[;]’” the Court need only “determine the actual meaning of the words used in the 
complaint.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 805 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Laber v. Harvey, 438 
F.3d 404, 413 n.3 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc)). Thus, a pro se complaint “still ‘must contain enough 
facts to state a claim for relief t hat is plausible on its face.’” Thomas v. The Salvation Army S. 
Territory, 841 F.3d 632, at 637 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212, 214 
(4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)). 
The United States Code provides a federal cause of action for any individual who believes 
a state actor has deprived them of a constitutional right. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; City of Monterey v. 
Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). The statute “is not itself a source of substantive rights, 
but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Albright v. 
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). Two 
elements are essential to state a claim under § 1983: (1) plaintiff must have suffered a deprivation 
of “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws ” of the United States; 
and (2) the act or omission causing the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting 
under color of law.  West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 
Clark’s claims concern a criminal prosecution against him in the Circuit Court for 
Washington County, Maryland, State v. Clark, Crim. No. C-21-CR-23-680 (Washington Cnty., Md. 
2023).  ECF 1-2. During his sentencing, the state court ordered that Clark “refrain from intimate 
relations with an intimate partner during the first year of [his] release.” Id. at 1. The court 
elaborated: 
That means that you’ve got to get your mental health under control. And I don’t 
know if that can be enforced or not, but I’ll know because if you, if you have a 
Case 1:25-cv-04276-DLB     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 2 of 3
3 
custody case or domestic violence case we can, we can figure out that you’re in a 
relationship with somebody. So, you need to get your feet under you and get your 
medicine regulated. 
Id.  
Cl
ark cannot pursue his § 1983 claim for damages because his sentence has not been 
invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (holding that a § 1983 plaintiff 
cannot “recover damages  for alleged unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other 
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless 
they show the conviction or sentence already has been reversed, expunged, or declared invalid).  
The
 Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Mu hammad v. Close , 540 U.S. 749, 751 (2004), 
holding that where “success in a prisoner’s § 1983 damages action would implicitly question the 
validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must first achieve favorable termination 
of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge the underlying conviction or 
sentence.” Id. Clark’s claims therefore are dismissed without prejudice.1 A separate Order follows. 
________________ _____________________________ 
D
ate  Deborah L. Boardman 
United States District Judge 
1 To the extent Clark believes he is detained in violation of the constitution or laws of the 
U
nited States he may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.  
April 21, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04276-DLB     Document 4     Filed 04/21/26     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight