United States District Court, D. Maryland
LORD GIYLANAH YISHRAEL, d/b/a/ Tia D. Greene, Plaintiff
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC, U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, MASONIC LODGES, FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS, Defendants
L. HOLLANDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Lord Giylanah Yishrael,  who is self represented, filed a
Complaint (ECF 1) along with a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF 2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete because she did not
respond to several questions. The financial information
provided by plaintiff suggests that she is indigent and
eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Requiring her to
correct the deficiencies in her motion would only delay
review of the Complaint, which for the following reasons will
complaint need not contain detailed allegations, but the
facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level and require “more than labels and
conclusions.” as “courts are not bound to accept
as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Once a
claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by
showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in
the complaint. Id. at 561. The allegations must
“give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S.
506. 512 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
forma pauperis statute permits an indigent litigant to
initiate an action in federal court without paying the filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, however, the statute requires a
court to dismiss 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), (ii).
complaint is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” McLean v. United
States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). But,
unlike the failure to state a claim standard, in reviewing
for frivolity, the Court “is not bound to accept
‘clearly baseless' factual allegations as
true.” Kilgore-Bey v. Rudey, No. RDB-18-0007,
2018 WL 1135391, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2018). Frivolous
claims include “those whose factual allegations are
‘so nutty,' ‘delusional,' or
‘wholly fanciful' as to be simply
‘unbelievable.'” McLean, 566 F.3d at
399 (quoting Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility,
302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002)); see Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 29 (1992).
Court also is mindful of its obligation to construe liberally
the pleadings of self-represented litigants. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating the Complaint, the factual allegations are assumed
to be true. Id. at 93 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555-56). Nonetheless, liberal construction does not
mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the
pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim.
See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901
F.2d 387, 390-91 (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). Even after affording the
Complaint a liberal construction, it fails to set forth a
plausible claim and is frivolous.
self-identifies as “a.k.a. Greene Giant, ” and
“d/b/a Tia Greene.” ECF 1 at 1, 2; ECF 1-3. She
states she is a citizen of the State of “Leo Adromedea,
Baltimore, USA & Planet Earth.” ECF 1 at 4.
Plaintiff's “Declaration of Zayin, ” which is
attached to the Complaint, states that Lord Giylanah Yishrael
is Supreme Judge in the Theocratic Government of Zayin.
Id. at 10. Plaintiff seems to allege that Defendant
Baltimore Gas and Electric is responsible for destroying all
life on earth. Id. at 2.
relief, plaintiff asks for “freedom from electrical
destruction” and that Adi Nirel Joyner be returned to
her mother under an order of protection. Id. at 5,
The Complaint does not indicate why the U.N. General
Assembly, Masonic Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations are
named as defendants.
construing plaintiff's allegations liberally, the Court
concludes that they involve “fantastic or delusional
scenarios” which are without basis. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327-28. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the
 The docket reflects the spelling of
“Yisrael.” The Clerk shall correct the
 In Greene v. State of
Maryland, Civil Action No. GLR-17-3485 (D. Md. 2018),
Greene filed suit against the State of Maryland, the U.S.
Department of Justice, and the United States Attorney's
Office based on various state court proceedings involving
Greene and her former domestic partner, David Joyner. In July
2014, a Maryland state court granted sole custody of Greene
and Joyner's child to Joyner. On January 10, 2018, the
Honorable George L. Russell, III, dismissed the case sua
sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(ii). In Greene v. Joyner, Civil Action No.
JFM-17-688 (D. Md. 2017), Greene sued Joyner and several