United States District Court, D. Maryland
MARC L. STENGEL Plaintiff
LARRY HOGAN, SCOTT SHELLENGERGER, ANNE ARUNDEL, Defendants
Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge
civil action was filed on November 5, 2018," along with
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which shall be granted.
self-represented pleading is captioned as an emergency motion
to halt election because, in plaintiffs view, the
"election is based and baked in FRAUD upon the Courts,
Public and VOTERS." ECF 1 at p. 1. Plaintiff claims he
was falsely incarcerated based on illegal gag orders
"for providing Predators and Bullies to Authoritative
Positions[.]" Id. He accuses Kathleen G. Cox of
criminal activities, states he has provided Governor Hogan
with a list of the crimes numerous times, and takes issue
with the American Psychological Association which he calls
"a scam and fraud." Id. He states that the
APA ignores the abuses of children and instead protects their
own membership and that "the word prevention does not
exist in their vocabulary." Id. He further
I am providing CRIMES to YOU, the Federal Court System of the
United States. My evidence CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY shows, the
Judicial Branch of the United States of Psychosis is the Base
of ALL Problems, World Wide. How is that, for a Start?
It's more than clear, you're Rules and Laws are
designed by Psychosis, for Psychosis. Period! Local, State
and Federal Scams to Assist EVIL.
Going on 8 years. Psychosis clearly never planned for me. How
many SCAM Divorces alone are knocked out in 1 year or so? The
don't know what hit them. Some will say, one had a better
Lawyer. Really? Because they both benefit. .. .
Shit happens. I'm delivering among thousands of CRIMES,
Local, State and Federal, but International Victims! Approval
from Governor Larry Hogan, Scott D. Shellenberger, Maryland
FRAUDtorney. Repeatedly Rejects Actual CRIMES with loads of
Evidence backing up each Crime. That ALL, as you will see,
goes ignored . . . Repeatedly. Trying to inform the VOTING
public creates Fraudulent GAG Orders and False Incarceration.
ECF 1 at p. 2 (Caps in original). The eight-page document
continues in the same vein and includes a five-page list of
celebrities that plaintiff wishes to call as witnesses in
addition to the named defendants.. ECF 1-1. Plaintiff has
also presented with his filing multiple CDs and very large
documents which are filed separately from the electronic
filed this action 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 may 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 93-94
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007)). Nonetheless, 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, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
frivolous claims involve "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."
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To
determine if a claim is frivolous, this court may "apply
common sense." Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of
Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Relevant here, "a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of
another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S.
is nothing contained in plaintiffs pleading that might lead
any reasonable person to believe that a viable cause of
action has accrued on his behalf. Rather, the pleading simply
expresses plaintiffs apparent dissatisfaction with the lack
of responses to his attempts to bring what he feels are
injustices to the attention of the Governor. This court is
not an appropriate forum to attempt to redress grievances
that do ...