United States District Court, D. Maryland
ELLEN L. HOLLANDER, District Judge.
On March 30, 2015, plaintiff, Catherine Randolph, a resident of Shamrock Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, filed this self-represented action, naming Eric Holder, Jr., the United States Attorney General, as the defendant. She predicates jurisdiction on "Unfair discrimination - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt organization with intentional disclosure (wiretap with declaratory messages to social media)."
In her statement of facts plaintiff states:
"I am requesting the U.S. District Court of Maryland to grant my relief-recovery of civil damages 18 U.S.C. [§] 2520 authorized - stop intentional disclosure (wiretap) prohibited advertising violation 18 U.S.C. [§] 2513 (judicial forfeit). U.S. Attorney General of Maryland has the power to do so however refuse here in violation 18 U.S.C. [§] 2521 and 47 U.S.C. [§] 743 (sanctions). Please consider good faith reliance on court warrant, grand jury subpoena, and law enforcement to stop illegal wiretap by unknown defendants (home business at 4234 Shamrock Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21206) commercial fraud is prohibited. I am deprived due process of law, rights to free speech, free press and against unreasonable searches by 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment. I need equal justice - 7th Amendment. Please declare action to stop intentional intercept (wiretap) violation 42 U.S.C. [§] 1985, 18 U.S.C. [§] 2513, and recovery civil damages 18 U.S.C. [§] 2520 - mandate grant relief: statutory damages, punitive damages, loss time, loss wages - false arrest public court record disclosure - case closed (not guilty) and litigation cost (pro se)."
ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of a protection order, declaratory relief, and $3 Billion dollars in damages. Id. at pg. 3.
Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because she appears indigent, plaintiff's motion to proceed, without the prepayment of the civil filing fee, shall be granted. Her complaint shall, however, be summarily dismissed.
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-
(B) the action or appeal-
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts are required to screen a plaintiff's complaint when in forma pauperis status has been granted. Therefore, pursuant to this statute, numerous courts have performed a preliminary screening of non-prisoner complaints. See Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminary screening of a non-prisoner complaint); Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) to non-prisoner actions); Evans v. Albaugh, 2013 WL 5375781 (N. D. W.Va. 2013) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in forma pauperis).
A complaint is frivolous if it is without "an arguable basis in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In this case, plaintiff is self-represented. When reviewing a complaint filed by a self-represented litigant, courts hold it "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers..." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A court, however, may dismiss a claim as frivolous if "the facts ...