United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. Grimm, United States District Judge.
Ferebee, a Maryland resident who has filed numerous lawsuits
in this Court without the assistance of counsel, filed this
lawsuit against the United States of America, seeking a
declaration that "whatever]] she and her granddaughter
ask for, it shall be given." Compl. 2, ECF NO.1. She
alleges, without any specificity, that she has been subject
to "verbal attacks, lies, and the perverted, and
pedohile [sic] situations," as well as "invasion of
her privacy through the Instagrams, radios, televisions,
police departments, people who watch the Petitioner as she
is in the public restrooms, where she resides every now and
then, at hospitals emergency rooms, laundromat, because she
is homeless ... ." Id. at 3.
Ms. Ferebee asserts that "her demands for these heinous
crimes would be trillions of dollars," but she is
willing to accept a Court order. accompanied by a
"public service announcement made by televisions and
radios, for the world," in which she would be
"granted the world free of charge." Id. at
is proceeding pro se, and her Complaint is
to be construed liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, liberal
construction does not absolve Plaintiff from pleading
plausible claims. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); Holsey v.
Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Md. 1981) (citing
Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir.
well established that a Court has broad inherent power to
dismiss an action, or part of an action, which is frivolous,
and may exercise its discretion to dismiss a case at any
time, notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee or any
portion thereof, if it determines that a plaintiff lacks
standing, that subject matter jurisdiction does not exists,
or that a case fails to state a claim. See Mallard v.
United States Dist. Ct. for SD. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296,
307-08 (1989) (courts have authority to dismiss a frivolous
or malicious lawsuit even in absence of a specific statutory
provision); Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406
(4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (noting that "frivolous
complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the inherent
authority of the court, even when the filing fee has been
paid"); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants
Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that
district courts may dismiss frivolous complaints sua
sponte, even when a plaintiff has paid the filing fee,
noting that "district courts are in particular likely to
be exposed to frivolous actions, and thus have an even
greater need for inherent authority to dismiss such actions
quickly in order to preserve scarce judicial
resources".. Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§
1915(e)(2)(B), courts are required to screen a plaintiffs
complaint when in forma pauperis status has been granted, and
to dismiss if the allegations are frivolous or fail to state
a claim. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2)(B)iii)-(iii). Therefore,
pursuant to this statute, numerous courts have performed a
preliminary screening of non-prisoner complaints. See
Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434
F.3d 725, 727-28 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. Â§
1915(e)(2)(B) to screen preliminarlly a non-prisoner
complaint); Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260
(11th Cir. 2002) (applying S 1915(e) to non-prisoner
actions); Evans v. Albaugh, No. 13-CV-11, 2013 WL
5375781, at *1-2 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 25, 2013) (28 U.S.C. Â§
1915(e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in forma
has not provided any information that might lead to a
reasonable conclusion that some plausible cause of action has
accrued on her behalf, as she has not identified any actors
of specific acts. Nor could the Court order the relief she
requests, even if damages were plausibly alleged, as she is
requesting injunctive relief from companies and individuals
throughout the world, none of whom is a party to this action.
it is this 10th day of October, 2018, by the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED
1. The Complaint IS DISMISSED;
2. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff;
3. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.
In this case, Ms. Ferebee has
not moved to proceed in forma pauperis; nor has she paid the
filing fee. I note that she has been granted in forma
pauperis status in previous cases Eg. Ferebee v.
Petty, No. PWG-17-1503. She also has not ...