Brown v. Brown County Circuit Court et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 5/1/13.(c/m af 5/2/13) (amf, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JEROME JULIUS BROWN
* CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-13-1277
BROWN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et al. *
On April 29, 2013, Jerome Julius Brown (ABrown@), a detainee at the Western State Hospital
in Staunton, Virginia, filed a complaint seeking $103,000.00 in damages. The action contains runon, nonsensical statements which seemingly discuss forged and falsified contracts related to real
property. Attached to the action, however, is a copy of an arrest warrant issued in Brown’s name in
the Commonwealth of Virginia for forging a public record or certificate on Department of Motor
Vehicle forms. ECF No. 1 at attachment. The cause of action or nature of suit itself is otherwise
Plaintiff has filed over 106 cases with the court and is subject to pre-filing restrictions under
In re: Jerome J. Brown, Misc. No. 04-465 (D. Md.).1 His previous actions in the court generally
consist of rambling memoranda and indecipherable attachments. This case is no different.
While self-represented actions are to be generously construed, federal courts are not required
to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them. See Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.
2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985). Further, a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain a
The miscellaneous standing order prohibits Brown from entering the Northern and Southern
Divisions of the court, limits him to one active case at a time, restricts the manner in which Brown
may file papers with the court, and directs how the Clerk is to handle/return the papers.
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court=s jurisdiction depends; a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and a demand for judgment
for the relief the pleader seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Although pleadings filed by self-represented litigants must be “liberally construed” and “held
to less stringent standards than those by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the
facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. They require
“more than labels and conclusions,” as “courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Moreover, a federal court does not act as an
advocate for a self-represented claimant. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 242-43 (4th Cir. 1996);
Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
This court has unsuccessfully attempted to determine the nature of the claims from a
generous construction of the papers, but colorable claims cannot be fashioned from this senseless
pleading. Given the materials presented before this court and Brown’s litigation history, his
complaint shall be summarily dismissed without allowing amendment/supplementation or the
issuance of summons. A separate Order follows.
Date: May 1, 2013.
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge
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?