United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael Lawrence Pack's Complaints in the above
listed cases are identical, except each names a different
Defendant. Pack also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis in each case, which will be granted. After
preliminary review of the Complaints, this Court finds they
fail to state a cognizable federal action, and will dismiss
them with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. §
these identical Complaints filed on April 18. 2019. Pack, who
identifies himself as an Army veteran, states that he is
filing a class action for civil rights discrimination based
on his difficulty in securing a medical card from the
Veterans Administration (VA), a Social Security card from the
Social Security Administration (SSA), and an identification
card from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA).
Pack asserts that without identification, he will be arrested
and detained until the police can ascertain his identity.
Pack is suing for $10 million in each case.
alleges that on April 10, 2019, he requested but was unable
to obtain a replacement medical card at the Veterans
Administration (VA) Hospital on Greene Street in Baltimore
because he did not have an identification card issued by the
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA). Pack asserts he
went a Social Security Administration (SSA) office on Wabash
Avenue in Baltimore where he was denied a new Social Security
card because he needed a statement from a VA physician and
copies of his medical records to provide proof of his age and
April 11, 2019, Pack went to the VA Hospital Emergency Room
where a nurse directed him to the VA enrollment office.
Instead, Pack left and went to the MVA on Reisterstown Road
in Baltimore where he applied for and was denied an
identification card because he did not have a Social Security
district judges have discretion under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2) to screen meritless or frivolous cases.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989);
Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of
Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 953 (4th Cir. 1995). A
complaint may be dismissed under §1915(e) if it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Neitze,
490 U.S. at 325.
that Pack has filed these Complaints pro se, this
Court holds them to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). Liberal construction will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in
his complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable
under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). A pro se complaint
must still contain sufficient facts "to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level" and "state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
This "plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to
demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully." Francis v. Giacomelli,
588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). He must articulate facts that, when accepted as
true, demonstrate he has stated a claim entitling him to
extent Pack wants to bring each case as a class action, none
meets the requisites for a class action, and in any event,
Pack may not represent the legal rights of others unless he
is a member of the bar. Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23 (a), (g).
Further, Pack generally alleges Defendants have violated his
civil rights, but does not identify any constitutional right
to a VA medical card, a Social Security card or an MVA
identification card or explain how the actions alleged here
were unlawful. Although Pack's efforts to obtain these
cards may be very frustrating for him, they do not support a
claim of constitutional dimension.
these reasons, this Court will by separate Order dismiss
these cases with prejudice for ...