United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar United States District Judge.
above-captioned complaint for damages and injunctive relief
was filed by Frank Brett on June 6, 2017, together with a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2.
Brett alleges that he resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be
self-represented action files suit against various
individuals from Maryland, New York, Florida, and
Pennsylvania. His allegations, most of which contain
nonsensical and incoherent statements, invoke federal
criminal code provisions as the basis for this court's
jurisdiction. Brett claims that for the past twenty years he
and his wife have been harassed and followed in Florida,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and “all over
America” by individuals who are not named as
defendants. The body of the complaint contains no discernable
constitutional violations supported by factual assertions
tied to the named defendants. ECF No. 1 & ECF No. 1-1.
28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent litigant may commence an
action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To
protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the
statute allows a district court to dismiss the case before
service of process upon a finding that the action has no
factual or legal basis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Indeed, this Court must conduct a
preliminarily review of a complaint's allegations before
service of process and dismiss it if satisfied that the
complaint has no factual or legal basis. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the United
States Supreme Court held that a district court may dismiss
the complaint of a pro se litigant under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 when the complaint includes only a “fanciful
factual allegation” and lacks “an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Id. at 325;
see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim as
factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are
'clearly baseless, ' a category encompassing
allegations that are 'fanciful, ' 'fantastic,
' and 'delusional.' As those words suggest, a
finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the
facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma
pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply
because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations
unlikely.”) (citations to Neitzke omitted).
explained that the statute “accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce
the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Id. at 327. Indeed, § 1915 was
amended after Neitzke and Denton, such that
now the statute mandates that a district court
“shall dismiss” a case upon a finding that the
Complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B)(ii).
complaints of self-represented litigants are held to a less
stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys,
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978), and a federal district court is charged with liberally
construing a complaint filed by a self-represented litigant
to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). When a
federal court is evaluating a self-represented complaint, the
plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true.
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic
Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
Liberal construction does not mean that a court can ignore a
clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth
a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See
Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all
court has examined the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (“PACER”) and takes judicial notice
that commencing in 2006, Brett has filed over 160 cases in
the federal courts. The majority of those cases were
dismissed as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e). For
example, in Brett v. Rodriquez, et al., Civil Action
No. GKS-17-313 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 2017), Senior United
States District Court Judge G. Kendall Sharp dismissed
Brett's case as frivolous and subjected any and all
future cases filed by Brett to preliminary review and
pre-filing screening. Moreover, in dismissing Brett's
complaint as frivolous the federal court in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania noted that Brett had unsuccessfully
pursued “scores” of cases in twelve different
federal districts and referenced one of Brett's cases
filed in and dismissed by the Eastern District of North
Carolina. See Brett v. Wingate, et al.,
Civil Action No. YK-15-2438 (M.D. of Pa. 2016). A district
judge presiding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has identified at least
thirty-eight cases Brett has filed that have been dismissed
as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See Brett
v. Sampson, Civil Action No. EGS-15-3711 (E.D. Pa.
when providing a generous review to the self-represented
complaint, the court finds it appropriate to dismiss
Brett's cause of action. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (a complaint must be dismissed
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) if it does not allege
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28. Brett
presents a plethora of claims which are completely
implausible and made without any viable factual supporting
allegations. It is, therefore, appropriate to dismiss his
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Brett's reliance on federal criminal statutes,
specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 118,
is misplaced, as these criminal statutes do not create a
private right of action. See Flowers v. Tandy Corp.,
773 F.2d 585, 588-89 (4th Cir. 1985). This court has no
authority to initiate criminal charges. The decision whether
or not to prosecute, and for what offense, rests with the
prosecution. See, e.g., Borderkircher
v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978); Brett v.
Brett, 503 F.App'x. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2012)
(“[C]riminal statutes do not give rise to civil
liability.”). The Supreme Court said in Linda R.S.
v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973): “[I]n
American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
nonprosecution of another.” See also Banks v.
Buchanan, 336 F.App'x 122, 123 (3d Cir. 2009);
Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir.
1997); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 22 (D.D.C.
2012). If Brett seeks to pursue criminal charges, he must
bring his allegations to the attention of law enforcement
authorities, not this Court.
Brett's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
shall be granted and his complaint shall be dismissed by
 In his 40 pages of attachments, Brett
presents a rambling history of his accusations, listing some
of the defendants as the Chairman, an accountant, law firm
for the New York and New Jersey Port Authority, and a
lobbyist for United Airlines, and makes numerous fanciful
allegations regarding their involvement in the traffic on the
George Washington Bridge and their ties to the Gambino crime
family. Brett further discusses robberies from family homes
and thefts of documents in his legal cases, an episode where
he was referred to as gay and “Morris Animal Man,
” repeated stalking incidents and other actions taken
against him in various churches in the District of Columbia
and in twelve other states, and ...