Quartey v. Obama

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 7/15/11. (c/m 7/18/11 bmh, Deputy Clerk)

-_ENTf~D
WOOED --RECEIVED

----.FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

__

,"-'1_
MARY AKU QUARTEY
Plaintiff
v.

! 8 2011

A, ..-u:
ClERK'U.S.OISTRICT COURT
OISl14ICT OF ~~YlJ\ND

*

..,,,

~

Civil Action No. JKB-11-1663

f

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Defundam

*

*
*******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., filed this self represented complaint.

The

complaint is not a model of clarity. Plaintiff claims that in 2008, money in her Postal Service
Federal Credit Union account was transferred to Wachovia Bank. She appears to claim that the
Director of the FBI directed that her "total wealth" be transferred to the "Federal District Court
Baltimore Bank." ECF NO.1.
Plaintiff has filed for indigency status. ECF NO.2. The motion shall be granted. This court
may preliminarily review the complaint allegations before service of process and dismiss them if
satisfied that the complaint has no factual or legal basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310,
1314 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995). As explained by the Supreme
Court in Neitzke:

"Examples of [factually baseless lawsuits] are claims describing fantastic or

delusional scenarios, with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. at 328.

.

~t":"r

*
*

~

Plaintiff s complaint provides no jurisdictional or factual basis for its filing. Her attachments
are replete with fanciful illusions.

The action shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim and

without service of process on defendant.! A separate order shall follow.

Date:

a~

1"1

4~~.{'.B~

2011

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

Plaintiff has filed approximately twenty-six cases in this court since December 2, 2009. Given the
frivolous nature of her filings, the court concludes that affording plaintiff the opportunity to amend her
complaint would be an exercise in futility.

2