Taylor v. Baltimore City Public School System Board of Education

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 5/21/13. (c/m 5/22/13 apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NATHAN CURTIS TAYLOR

*

Plaintiff pro se
v

*
*

BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM and
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Defendants

Civil Action No. GLR-13-1409

*
*
*
***

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned case was filed on May 10, 2013, along with a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because he appears to be indigent, Plaintiff’s Motion shall be
granted. The Complaint must be dismissed.
Plaintiff seeks damages of 200 million dollars against the Baltimore City School System
because he was a victim of prejudice and discrimination. He states “it all begin [sic] when I
moved to this address as a little kid.” ECF No. 1 at p. 2. He claims the discrimination was all
planned out as a scheme of fraud in education since his birth and implores this Court to “look at
the records” and “do some research.” Id. He asserts that the School System violated Brown v.
Board of Education1 “which declared segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional.” Id.
Although a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts alleged must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and require “more than labels and
conclusions,” as “‘courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007).
1

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 348 U.S. 886 (1954).

The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 1974. Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of
facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 1969.
Further, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether
an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court
already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Moreover, each "averment of a pleading
shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The Court has thoroughly examined the Complaint and finds that it insufficient and does
not comply with federal pleading requirements. Instead a concise statement of facts as to the
underlying cause of action, the Complaint is replete with legal statements and conclusions.
Global statements of perceived injustice, such as the ones presented in the instant Complaint,
with no clear statement regarding how Plaintiff was harmed or why his claim should even be
considered timely,2 are simply insufficient to place Defendants on notice of the nature of the
claim against them. It is well-settled law that complaint 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).

2

Plaintiff states he was born on January 7, 1986. ECF No. 1 at p. 2. Assuming the general statute of limitations of
three years did not begin to run until he was 18 years old, his claim is untimely by six years. See Md. Cts. & Jud.
Proc. Code Ann. §5-101.

2

A separate Order dismissing the Complaint follows.
May 21, 2013

/s/
________________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

3