United States District Court, D. Maryland
BROWN COUNTY SHERIFF” JEROME BROWN FBI DIRECTOR CHRSTOPHER RAY USPIS L. DEALIL FRAZIER, #4940 Plaintiffs
PGC SHERIFF MELVIN C. HIGH PGC DEPUTY KSM MORINA COUNTY EXECUTIUVE RUSHERN BAKER, III DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY TO WIT SHERIFF MELVIN C. HIGH Defendants
Xinis, United States District Judge
February 9, 2018, Jerome Julius Brown, a frequent
self-represented litigator in this court, filed a
civil-rights action on the Court's pre-printed complaint
forms. ECF No. 1. Brown also moved for in forma
pauperis status. ECF No. 2. Although portions of Brown's
in forma pauperis affidavit are facially questionable, the
Court grants Brown's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because he does appear indigent.
himself out as a “Brown County Sheriff, ” Brown
sues the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Prince George's
County, Maryland, as well as the County Executive of Prince
Case 8:18-cv-00416-PX Document 4 Filed 02/26/18 Page 2 of 3
George's County, Maryland and state District
Court. In addition to the pre-printed complaint
forms, Brown attaches copies of the state court docket, a
“criminal complaint” received in this court in
August of 2017, and Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
compliance summaries, throughout the complaint form pages.
ECF No. 1., pp. 1-2, 6 & 8. Also attached are various
documents including a letter from the Prince George's
County State's Attorney, a writ of summons in a state
district court case, electronic mail responses to and from
Brown, credit report information, case information as to a
Maryland District Court case from 2015, CJIS information
regarding a firearm application, a copy of a personal money
order, copies of deeds of trust, and information from the
Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. ECF No. 1-1.
In his relief request, Brown asks that assessment and
taxation data on certain real property be changed and he
seeks plumbing, electrical and air conditioning repair to the
property. Id., p. 11.
complaint must include a short and plain statement of the
grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends; a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for judgment for
the relief the pleader seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). Because Brown is proceeding as a self-represented
litigant, the court must liberally construe his complaint.
See e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Yet at the same time, the Court is not to act as
Brown's advocate. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d
241, 242-43 (4th Cir. 1996); Weller v. Department of
Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990);
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). Pro se complaints, while
“held to less stringent standards, ”
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, must nonetheless allege
facts sufficient to raise a right to relief above the
speculative Case 8:18-cv-00416-PX Document 4 Filed 02/26/18
Page 3 of 3 level. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), citing Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 19l5A permit an indigent
litigant to file suit in federal court without prepaying the
filing fee. However, a district court “shall
dismiss” any such suit if it “fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 19l5A(b)(l). More
particularly, dismissal is warranted where the complaint
rests on “fanciful factual allegations” or
“lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.”
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
when liberally construing Brown's complaint, it plainly
cannot survive dismissal. Brown titles his pleading
“criminal complaint, ” and seeks “an arrest
warrant;” the remainder does not, with any coherence,
state a cause of action. ECF No. 1. To the extent Brown wishes
to pursue criminal charges against defendants, he must bring
his concerns to the attention of law enforcement, as this
Court wholly lacks authority to effectuate the criminal
prosecution of another via civil complaint. See,
e.g., Borderkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357,
364 (1978). See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336
Fed.Appx. 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).
based on the foregoing, Brown's Complaint is DISMISSED. A
separate Order follows.
 Brown has filed over 100 cases with
the court. He is subject to communication and pre-filing
restrictions imposed in In re: Jerome Julius Brown,
Misc. No. 04-465 (D. Md.). The miscellaneous order provides,
in part, that Brown may only have one case open at a time and
must use court forms to file any actions. Further, he is not
permitted to enter either the Baltimore or Greenbelt
courthouses or to contact court personnel by telephone or
facsimile communications. Id.
 Brown lists Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Christopher Ray and United States
Postal Inspection Service employee L. Dealil Frazier as
co-plaintiffs. As Brown is the only plaintiff who signed the
complaint and is the driving force behind the filing, both
Ray and Frazier shall be terminated as parties.
 The court is mindful of the Fourth
Circuit decision in Goode v. Central Virginia Legal Aid
Society, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015)
(circuit court lacks appellate jurisdiction because litigant
could amend the complaint to cure pleading deficiency; case
remanded to allow litigant to file an amended complaint).
However, Brown's current complaint does not remotely
state a claim for relief, and when ...