Organizing for Action William A. Taccino v. Social Security Administration

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 7/16/14. (c/m 7/16/14 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ORGANIZING FOR ACTION
WILLIAM A. TACCINO, volunteer

*
*

Plaintiff pro se
*
v.

Civil Action No. GLR-14-2112
*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
VARIOUS DEPATMENTS AND
AGENCIES,
PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.
BARRACK OBAMA,
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
WEST VIRGINIA GOV. EARL
RAY TOMLIN,
STATE OF MARYLAND,
MARYLAND GOV. MARTIN
O’MALLEY

*
*
*
*
*
*

Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned case was filed on July 1, 2014, together with a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (ECF 2). Because he appears to be indigent, Plaintiff’s Motion shall be granted.
For the reasons that follow, the Complaint must be dismissed.
The Complaint concerns Plaintiff’s loss of his job with the United States Postal Service in
2000; the foreclosure on his home and small business in West Virginia; the denial of Social
Security Disability benefits; an alleged denial of access to health care by Maryland’s Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene despite Plaintiff’s procurement of health insurance; reduction of
Plaintiff’s food stamp allowance; failure by the National Credit Union Association to take action
against a local credit union when Plaintiff and his wife filed a complaint against it; failure by the
Federal Trade Commission to take action on Plaintiff’s verbal complaint against a cell phone

company; failure of the West Virginia State Police to provide Plaintiff with an “IR number”
when he reported his car was stolen; and failure by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
to allow Plaintiff to register his car. ECF 1 at pp. 1 – 15. Plaintiff is suing the President and the
Governors of West Virginia and Maryland because they have failed to insure the federal and
state agencies about which he complains have performed the duties Plaintiff alleges are required.
In each claim he asserts he has been deprived of constitutional rights to due process. Regarding
the U.S. Postal Service, Plaintiff alleges the loss of his job violated double jeopardy as well as
due process because he was not afforded the same rights given a criminal defendant in the
context of his loss of the job.
The Complaint appears to be Plaintiff’s attempt to address every adverse action taken
against him by various governmental agencies and to hold responsible the chief executive
officers of West Virginia and Maryland, as well as the President of the United States. The
constitutional claims alleged include bizarre allegations of entitlement that are not cognizable
legal claims. Indeed, Plaintiff’s claim regarding the loss of a job fourteen years ago is clearly
time-barred. Additionally, claims against the States of Maryland and West Virginia are barred
by the Eleventh Amendment.1 Plaintiff’s attempt to file the instant Complaint on behalf of a
volunteer organization (“Organizing for Action”) is impermissible as he is not an attorney
authorized to file suit on behalf of an organization.2
In short, the Complaint is so replete with erroneous legal conclusions and procedural
defects that it is rendered frivolous. A frivolous Complaint may be dismissed sua sponte for lack

1

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state, its agencies, and departments are
immune from suits in federal court brought by its citizens or the citizens of another state, unless it consents. See
Penhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
2

“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only
through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (citations omitted).

2

of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(1). See Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d
477 (6th Cir. 1999); O’Connor v. United States, 159 F.R.D. 22 (D. Md. 1994); see also Crowley
Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273, 277 (7th Cir. 1988) (federal district judge has
authority to dismiss a frivolous suit on his own initiative). As the Complaint does not provide
information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that some plausible cause of action has
accrued on Plaintiff’s behalf, it must be dismissed by separate Order which follows.

July 16, 2014

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

3