McDowell v. Mack
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/9/11. (c/m af 9/12/11)(amf, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
EDWARD MCDOWELL,
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
PATRICIA MACK,
Defendant
*
*
CIVIL NO. JKB-11-2380
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Edward McDowell pro se filed this lawsuit alleging housing discrimination.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Previously, the Court granted McDowell leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, but noted the inadequacy of the complaint’s allegations and provided additional time
during which he could file a supplemental complaint that included additional details as to his
claimed mental disability and the actions taken by Defendant Patricia Mack in relation to his
claimed disability. (ECF No. 3.) The Court specifically noted that McDowell’s criminal history
was not a protected classification in the context of housing discrimination despite his claim that
he was discriminated against on this basis. (Id.)
McDowell has now filed a supplemental complaint that alleges he has “a multiple
personality mood disorder which lists [him] under 7 different personalities, some of which are
violent in nature and [his] list of assault charges substantiates this fact.” (ECF No. 4.) Further,
he says, “Now my name was dropped from the public housing waiting list based on ignorant
assumption of continuous violence by Patricia Mack herself or her Baltimore City Housing
Authority business associations.”
(Id.)
Finally, McDowell states, “Patricia Mack and her
business associates of Housing Authority of Baltimore City had no justified reason to deny my
housing based upon assumption associated with what is printed on a medical record or
background check.” (Id.)
These allegations fall short of the mark. McDowell’s additional allegations indicate that
his name was dropped from the public housing waiting list, not based on any mental disability,
but based on Defendant’s conclusion that he had a propensity for violence, which would not be
an unreasonable reaction to his “list of assault charges.” He has, therefore, failed to allege that
he was discriminated against based upon a protected classification.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court shall dismiss a case in which leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is granted if, at any time, the Court determines that the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. In the present case, McDowell has failed to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, a separate order will be entered dismissing
the case without prejudice.
DATED this 9th day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?