United States District Court, D. Maryland
MARC L. STENGEL Plaintiff
GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN, JUDGE JUDITH C. ENSOR, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC. AND ITS EMPLOYEES-STAFF-ASSOC., SUSAN SILESKY, BARRACK OBAMA, BOYS LATIN SCHOOL OF MARYLAND, JAMES W. HOLDERNESS, et al. Defendants
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
self-represented complaint was filed, together with the full
filing fee, on November 2, 2018, which commenced the above
captioned action. Plaintiff Marc L. Stengel asserts that he
is “providing CRIMES to YOU, the Federal Court System
of the United States.” ECF No. 1 at p. 2. Because the
complaint fails to state a cognizable claim, it must be
complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the
court's inherent authority, even when the plaintiff has
paid the filing fee.” Smith v. Kagan, 616
Fed.Appx. 90 (4th Cir. 2015); see Chong Su Yi v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., 554 Fed.Appx. 247, 248 (4th Cir. 2014)
(same); Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406 (4th
Cir. 2012) (same). In addition, “dismissal prior to
service of process is permissible when a court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over a patently frivolous
complaint.” Smith, 616 Fed.Appx. at 90;
Chong Su Yi, 554 Fed.Appx. at 248 (same);
Ross, 493 Fed.Appx. at 406 (same).
instant complaint asserts several incongruous claims,
including: the rules of this court are psychotic; the
American Psychological Association is a scam and fraud
operation; “Dr. Philbert” uses millions of viewer
drones, has no idea what he is doing, and is
“clueless;” this court's job is to
“provide a way to complain [b]ut your psychotic system
does not allow it;” and the print on this court's
forms is too small to read. ECF No. 1 at pp. 2-4. Plaintiff
makes other statements that do not seem to make any sense,
Quick [FUQ]: Why do they need you confusing the issues for 10
years? No? Ok . . . I would like to see your
‘Measurable Results'? Yea . . . You will notice
Psychosis removed that feature. Quantify is a Bad Word. You
also have a Painting Daughter in Law. Your younger son looks
real. How much lack of Confidence is there is (sic) your
circle? Let's get those you promote as well. Measurable
Results. No. more BIRD-SEED. Measurable Results Only. That
request will demand Bird-Seed.
Welcome to the Psychological BULLSHIT, On The Fly Bird-Seed
Factories. Say SHOW ME, and they will point to another
Factory. Ask for any Reality, then step back . . . Bird-Seed
is coming!!!! Squawk.
ECF No. 1 at p. 3 (ellipses and capitalization in original).
Plaintiff also admonishes this court to “review ALL
materials” and states he has submitted “over 10,
000 pages and 15 DVD's” with his complaint.
(See Filed Separately folder.)
remainder of the complaint offers no further illumination as
to why this complaint has been filed with this court or why
the Defendants named are being sued; however, Plaintiff
provides a copy of a stet agreement from the “District
Court for Baltimore County”, which remains unsigned.
ECF No. 1-1 at pp. 1-5. The agreement concerned stalking
charges against Plaintiff and requires Plaintiff to refrain
from contacting a list of 111 different people and places of
business and to continue treatment with his psychiatrist.
Id. Plaintiff notes he did not sign the agreement.
Id. at p. 4.
also filed another complaint in this court on November 5,
2018, seeking an emergency stay of the election based on his
view that the “election is based and baked in FRAUD
upon the Courts, Public and VOTERS.” Stengel v.
Hogan, et al., Civil Action CCB-18-3423 (D. Md. 2018) at
ECF No. 1, p. 1. Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in that action, which was granted. The
complaint was dismissed as frivolous on November 16, 2018,
this court noting that “[t]his court is not an
appropriate forum to attempt to redress grievances that do
not state a federal cause of action” and denying the
“emergency motion.” Id. at ECF No. 4 at
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 are
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. 614, 619 (1973), see also Banks v.
Buchanan, 336 Fed. App'x 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) aff'd, Civ. No. 12-5198, 2012 WL 6603088
(D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012), cert denied, 133 S.Ct. 1263, 185
L.Ed.2d 183 (2013); Speight v. Meehan, Civ. No.
08-3235, 2008 WL 5188784, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008).
plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when the complaint does not “contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009)
(internal citations omitted) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Where a
complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent
with' a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of
“entitlement to relief.'” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). This standard
“demands more than an unadorned,
Id. Further, “the tenet that a court must
accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. The court may also anticipate affirmative
defenses that clearly appear on the face of the complaint.
Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983);
Nasim, 64 F.3d at 954.
contained in Plaintiff's complaint or the materials
accompanying it would lead any reasonable person to believe
that a viable federal cause of action has accrued on his
behalf. Rather, the pleading is simply a treatise regarding
Plaintiff's apparent dissatisfaction with various
organizations, judges, the outcome of his child custody case,
and his treatment by a psychiatrist. While the court may
sympathize with some of Plaintiff's frustration, this
court is not an appropriate forum simply to air grievances
that do not state a federal cause of action. As such,
requiring the named Defendants to respond to the matters
asserted is not an appropriate use of public resources such
as the federal judiciary.
separate Order which follows, the complaint ...