United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Russell, III United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Roger Wilson's
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2).
The Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is
necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For
the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant Wilson's
Motion but dismiss his Complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
is a former federal prisoner who alleges that he “filed
numerous complaints about being enslaved and what patents
were stolen off of him with both the State and Fed[eral] Atty
Generals and they both refused to press charges.”
(Compl. at 5, ECF No. 1). He pleads that this refusal
occurred despite his assertion that “he has . . . 1000
witnesses [and] notarized proof docketed in the court
system.” (Id.). Wilson states that he is not
raising a claim regarding patent infringement; rather, he
states that he is “seeking to press charges on the
people who have his patents in order to get money he's
owed” and asserts his claim can be construed as one for
“obstruction of justice, slavery by false
representation or just flat out slavery.” (Id.
at 8). On March 15, 2018, Wilson sued Defendants seeking 100
billion dollars in damages and filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Because he appears indigent, the
Court will grant the Motion.
Standard of Review
filed this Complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant to
commence an action in this Court without prepaying the filing
fee. To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the
statute requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous or
malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This
Court is mindful, however, of its obligation to liberally
construe self-represented pleadings, such as the instant
Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). In evaluating such a Complaint, the factual
allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at 93
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007)).
liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set
forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th
Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure
up questions never squarely presented.”). In making
this determination, “[t]he district court need not look
beyond the complaint's allegations . . . . It must hold
the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally.” White v. White, 886 F.2d 721,
722-23 (4th Cir. 1989).
Court concludes that the Complaint, even when afforded a
liberal construction, fails to state a claim.
extent that Wilson is alleging that criminal prosecutions
were not initiated by the state or federal governments after
receiving his reports, the Complaint does not state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. As an alleged crime victim,
Wilson has no constitutional right to insist on criminal
prosecution. Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224 (4th
Cir. 1988). The government's decision to seek an
indictment or to initiate an investigation into information
provided by Wilson is discretionary. In re Fraley,
940 F.2d 652 (4th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (citing Massey
v. Smith, 555 F.2d 1355 (8th Cir. 1977)). This Court
will not interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion in deciding whether to seek an indictment or to
launch a criminal investigation. Id. (citing
Inmates of Attica Corr. Fac. v. Rockefeller, 477
F.2d 375, 379-82 (2d Cir. 1973)).
extent Wilson is attempting to assert a claim for civil
damages, the basis for such a claim is not discernible from
the pleadings filed. The only federal statute Wilson
references is 18 U.S.C. §1505, which is a criminal
statute prohibiting obstruction of proceedings before
departments, agencies and committees and does not bestow a
civil cause of action on anyone for its violation. Wilson
does not plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face” under §
1505. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading which
sets forth a claim for relief, shall contain “(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and
the claim needs no new jurisdictional support (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought .
. . ” Each “allegation must be simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Wilson does not
comply with the minimal pleading standards contained in Rule
8 and, as such, provides insufficient basis for a response to
the claims he raises.
Wilson fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Accordingly, the Court ...