United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge
above-captioned complaint was filed on April 15, 2016,
together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No.
2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall
facts of the case as stated by Plaintiff are:
Archbishop of New Orleans issued Open Letter regarding a
corporation opening for business in March of 2013, and issued
directive its own corporation shall not do business with
anyone involved in build out of said corporation.
Subsequently said Archbishop issued Second Open Letter to its
cohort corporations to allow participating build out
Corporations to let transaction to take place;
ECF No. 1, p. 2.
describes his argument as:
Constitution may come before the court through ‘we the
people’; via qualified ‘we the people’; and
Plaintiff asserts Plaintiff is qualified part of ‘we
the people’ to let Constitution come before the court.
Under first amendment challenge; controversy does not meet
“state’s right to categorize’ and
“states’ best interest"; then its
unconstitutional; i.e. if categorization is incongruent, if
there Is less intrusive way to achieve same thing;
respectively. Archbishop of New Orleans could only have
written open letter, on or about, March 2013 ipso facto in
the prior ordo cogniscendi; through digital format; its
follow letter(s) subsumes under it;
This is in violation of first amendment; in both
State’s right to categorize; and states’ best
interest. State’s right to categorize could not give
religion preferential treatment; allowing relation to have
use of digital format; thus incongruous categorization. In
State’s best interest, allowing Religion to access
digital format; without constitutional mandate, violates due
process of the law; when Prohibition had to obtain
constitutional mandate; to repeal it; there is less intrusive
way to let religion intentionally violate constitution.
Id., pp. 3.
seeks an injunction ordering “all laws enabling
archbishop to operate under digital format including sermon
recorded in digital format; collection via digital format et
al." Id., p. 4. He also seeks an injunction
ordering “all operations of any corporations including
archdiocese; archbishop must not have operational power and
or authorities" (id., pp. 4-5) as well as an
order directing the archdiocese of New Orleans, “cease
and desist operation." Id. p. 5.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss a case
filed in forma pauperis if it determines that the
action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. An action is frivolous if it raises an
indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon
clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or
delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327-28 (1989). As noted by Judge Hollander:
To be sure, this court is required to construe liberally a
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant, see
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and to
examine the complaint using a less stringent standard than
for those drafted by attorneys. Id.; see also Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978). This court
must allow the development of a potentially meritorious case,
see Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz
v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), and must assume the
complaint allegations to be true. Erickson, 551 U.S.
at 93. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts are
required to screen a plaintiff’s complaint when in
forma pauperis status has been granted. Pursuant to this
statute, numerous courts have performed a preliminary
screening of non-prisoner complaints. See, e.g., Michau
v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727
(4thCir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminary screening of a nonprisoner
complaint); 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).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must
dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint if it fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Although pleadings
filed by a self-represented plaintiff are to be liberally
construed, the plaintiff’s complaint must contain
factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level" and that
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
Harris v. Janssen Healthcare Products, No. CV
ELH-15-2730, 2015 WL 5897710, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015).
has not provided any information that might lead to a
reasonable conclusion that some plausible cause of action has
accrued on his behalf. ...