UNPUBLISHED
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Maryland’s Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital Center (“the Center”)
after being found not competent to stand trial, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of two actions he filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. 07-7576
Kelly’s first complaint asserted due process and equal
protection violations arising from statements the director of the
Center made in the course of Kelly’s 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 Kelly’s 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 Kelly’s 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
1
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
court’s 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 Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a 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
purposes.” Id. at 70. 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 Dep’t 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). See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722 (4th
Cir. 1989). An action is frivolous or malicious if it is based on
an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual
contentions are clearly baseless. 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 court’s dismissal of Kelly’s remaining claims as
frivolous. 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
Kelly’s second complaint alleged due process and equal
protection violations arising from the Center librarian’s refusal
to perform legal research for Kelly.2 The district court dismissed
Kelly’s complaint on the grounds that the State of Maryland was not
amenable to suit under § 1983 and the complaint failed to
adequately state claims against the remaining Defendants. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s 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-02600-
AW (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
2
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 court’s decision as to the state law claims,
the district court did not err.
- 5 -