Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yi v. Progress Place

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 4, 2016

CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff
v.
PROGRESS PLACE and MONTGOMERY COUNTY Defendants

          Chong Su Yi, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

         The above-captioned complaint was filed on June 16, 2016, together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall be granted.

         The complaint, as best the court can discern, concerns a homeless shelter's placing a "no trespass" order against Plaintiff. He invokes this court's federal question jurisdiction stating:

Federal Question:
Under 15th amendment;
Could Progress Place as extension of State; by Exemption of Taxes; as none profit; as task belong to State under General Welfare; but allowed entity to achieve, excludes religion, time barred by 1791 ratification of first amendment shall not establish in that religion legally lawfully could not establish unto Plaintiff; invoke trespass for limited time without probable cause; without show of good cause; and without court order to Plaintiff?

Id., p. 2.

         In further support of his complaint, Plaintiff states:

Because Plaintiff is citizen of State of Maryland through resident of Montgomery County allows Plaintiff to be a client to a shelter operated by County; which makes any products and services offered by County is entitlement; i.e. matter by right; e.g. given choice to opt in or opt out; not mandate; which allows proceed without option to opt out; since Plaintiff is homeless;
Progress Place is none profit organization; not a church or religion organization; if so it would violate first amendment; shall not establish enacted in 1791; no religion can establish beyond that date; via first amendment; religion could not establish unto Plaintiff through Progress Place et al; which would make Progress Place unconstitutional, the trespass notice would violates first amendment; if it is invoked under religion. Then the matter comes to halt effective immediately. Because during any legal proceeding when revelation makes raised issue from incident makes officially established subject matter moot; then the legal proceeding must stop; because the raised issue became moot; therefore, there are no incidents;
Therefore, it could not be religion establishment. Having said that; which means its extension of State; as extension of State;
Plaintiff had legal right to access its facility; but it issued no trespass without court adjudication; or State or county legislative body enactment; and it could not have been act of religion since religion to legally act unto Plaintiff has been time barred by 1791 ratification of shall not establish; first amendment;
Its unilaterally create rules without compelling reasons or its enumeration via right to know law; McBoyle v. U.S. 1931; if will of Congress is to call airplane surface going ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.