United States District Court, D. Maryland
XINIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5, 2017, plaintiff Thomas Kevin Jenkins' self-represented
Complaint, captioned as a legal and medical malpractice
action, was received for filing in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia seeking compensatory,
nominal, punitive and monetary damages totaling $500,
000.00. On November 20, 2017, Jenkins'
application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied without
prejudice and the complaint was dismissed on procedural
grounds. ECF No. 6. Jenkins moved for reconsideration of the
Court's order which was granted. The case was then
transferred to this Court and received by the Clerk on
February 26, 2018. ECF Nos. 7-10. This Court has revisited
Jenkins' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and grants
the motion for all proceedings in this District. For reasons
to follow, however, the Complaint shall be summarily
forma pauperis statute authorizes district courts to dismiss
a case where, as here, the Complaint fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, or if the claim is frivolous,
malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint, Jenkins appears to takes issue with the
psychological treatment and legal representation that he is
receiving in a pending federal criminal case. See United
States v. Jenkins, Criminal No. TDC-15-492 (D. Md.).
Jenkins asserts that a psychotherapist, Chad Tillbrook, and
Jenkins former attorney, Christopher Davis, “willfully
with malice intent harbor vindictive behavior-which led them
to articulate actions that are illegal and prohibited to
legal and medical practices.” ECF No. 1, p. 1. Jenkins
claims that Tillbrook and Davis breached confidentiality in
violation of the psychotherapist-patient and attorney-client
privileges and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Jenkins further
accuses both Tillbrook and Davis of an alliance to
“corruptly influence and obstruct [the] due
administration of justice;” perform “negligent
misrepresentation in defiance of court authority”; and
“orchestrat[e] a powerful deception of events, making
material and untruthful, fictitious statements -to convey
false and misleading - information in furtherance to dupe the
government and disrespecting the dignity of the people of the
state.” Id., p. 2.
review of the docket in United States v. Jenkins,
Criminal No. TDC-15-492 reflects that Jenkins has not yet
been tried. Christopher Davis was terminated as
Jenkins' counsel in October of 2017, and Jenkins is now
represented by a new Criminal Justice Act (CJA) attorney.
Nonetheless, Jenkins has continued to file self-represented
motions throughout his criminal case.
Complaint simply does not state a valid claim. A Complaint
must include a short and plain statement setting forth the
basis for the court's jurisdiction, the facts supporting
a claim on which relief may be granted, and what relief the
plaintiff seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The
averments in a complaint must be simple, concise, and direct,
yet sufficiently detailed and informative to provide
Defendants adequate notice of the claims. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(e)(1) d. See 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1215 (3d ed.
2004). A[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere statements, do not suffice.”
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S 662, 680 (2009).
Although a pro se plaintiff is afforded some latitude in
pleading, the Complaint must nonetheless include sufficient
information to identify the cause of action and named
defendants. See Johnson v. Silver, 742 F.2d 823, 825
(4th Cir. 1984).
Complaint, at best, recounts Jenkins' general displeasure
with Davis and Tillbrook, but it provides no factual basis to
state a legally cognizable claim for relief. To the extent
that Jenkins is pursuing a civil suit based on
ineffectiveness of counsel, that claim cannot be supported at
this juncture. A Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel requires the petitioner to demonstrate
(1) that his attorney's performance fell “below an
objective standard of reasonableness, measured by prevailing
professional norms, ” and (2) that such performance
“prejudiced [his] defense.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). A plaintiff
must demonstrate “prejudice” by showing “ a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different.” Id. at 694.
has not yet been tried and so cannot yet show that the result
of any claimed ineffectiveness has prejudiced him. As to
Tillbrook, Jenkins asserts only that Tillbrook breached the
psychotherapist-client privilege. Although a potential cause
of action, in general may lie, see Jaffee v.
Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1929 (1996),
Jenkins avers no facts from which the Court could draw a
plausible inference that such breach occurred in his case.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007). Accordingly, Jenkins has failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. A separate Order
follows dismissing this case without prejudice.
 According to the Bureau of Prisons
inmate locator website, Jenkins is currently confined the
Federal Medical Center at Butner, P. O. Box 1600, Butner,
North Carolina 27509. The docket shall be amended to reflect
 Jenkins is the subject of pending
 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).
Because Jenkins' criminal case has not concluded,
however, amendment in ...