United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander, United States District Judge
21, 2019, plaintiff Frank Brett of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, who is self represented, filed a Complaint with
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 1
(Complaint); ECF 2 (Motion). Numerous attachments were
submitted with the Complaint. The financial information
provided by plaintiff indicates that he is indigent and
eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, I shall
grant his Motion.
complaint need not contain detailed allegations, but the
facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level, and it requires “more than
labels and conclusions.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In particular, a
complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 570. And, 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).; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
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, 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)). Unlike the failure to state a claim standard,
however, in reviewing for frivolity, the Court “is not
bound to accept ‘clearly baseless' factual
allegations as true.” Kilgore-Bey v. Rudey,
Civil Action 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
Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe
pleadings of self-represented litigants. 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 (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.
filed the Complaint with 79 pages of attachments. ECF
As a basis for this court to exercise federal jurisdiction,
he asserts without explanation that his claims are brought
pursuant to “1996 FISA Act. USC 371 A&B.”
Further, he seems to assert that diversity of the
parties' citizenship also serves as a jurisdictional
basis. ECF 1 at 5, 7. As relief, he asks for $3 million from
each defendant and an injunction of unexplained nature
against “Haseim Crittendun Family and his boss Floyd
Wheeler.” Id. at 7. His allegations in the
Complaint and attachments, to the extent they are legible,
are incomprehensible and incoherent. The attachments consist
of lists of names, none of which can be discerned to have any
relation or relevance to defendants. Moreover, the
attachments to the suit set forth no discernible violations
of law, federal or state, or factual assertions that can be
attributed to defendants.
construing plaintiff's Complaint liberally, as I must, I
find it appropriate to dismiss Brett's suit, because he
fails to state any claim that is plausible. Nor has plaintiff
satisfied the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (a complaint must be
dismissed if it does not allege enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face); Williams,
490 U.S. at 325-28 (stating a complaint filed pro se may be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 when it includes only
“fanciful factual allegation” and lacks “an
arguable basis either in law or in fact”).
 Plaintiff identifies Biden as the
current Vice President of the United States. ECF 1 at
 The attachments are separately filed
in paper form and cannot be accessed on the electronic
 Brett's previous filings in this
district and others have been incomprehensible and dismissed
accordingly. See, e.g., Brett v. Cheryl Lewis,
et al., Civil Action ELH-17-3813 (dismissed January 18,
2018) (noting that Brett has filed over 181 cases in federal
district court, the majority of those cases dismissed as
frivolous pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Brett v.
Cheryl Lewis, et al, Civil Action JKB-17-1555 (dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) on June 26,
2017); Brett v. Owens, et al., Civil Action No.
RDB-13-3934 (dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
on January 2, ...