Randolph v. Holder

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 2/11/2015. (c/m 2/12/15 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

FllEO
U.S,~.QJ.!5TRICT
COURi

D/Sy"I~1

OFf"lPVI : •../~IV
HID
.r.d

IN THE UNIT~IHKltItg
D~~'IJ!PC31iCOURT
FOR THE DIS1:RU;:'J:,QF MARYLAND

l:lERK ::,Orr I"E
Ai BALTlf.lORE

CATHERINE

DENISE RANDOLPH
Plaintiff,

ElY _.-*---DEPUTY

v.

*

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, et a/.
DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Defendants.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. JKB-15-3l4

*
*****
MEMORANDUM

On February 4, 2015, plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore,
action, naming the United States Attorney and unnamed
facts, she raises the following

Maryland,

filed this self-represented

parties as defendants.

In her statement

of

claims:

"I am filing a claim because my need my relief grant for good cause. The relief needs to be granted
due to ongoing public disclosure S'h years: including false imprisonment (Criminal cases #506069025
and #506069026 pending untimely 6 years) case disposition: dismissed (thrown out -no evidence-no
convictions). Loss wages ~ loss time cause of criminal cases pending 6 years unconstitutional
infliction of mental distress-dignity harm-currently publicity 24/7 everywhere I go by unlawful
surveillance hackers (4234 Shamrock Ave.) illegal broadcasting home business. Stop cyber threats
extortion by written and verbal-photo images violated Federal wiretap statute prohibit advertising IS
U.S.c. 2512 please forfeit devices from government security surveillance system IS U.s.C. 2513.
Please consider to grant my relief punitive damages: mi'sappropriation lends to identity theft. I need
my privacy restored. I am an innocent suffering victim-mental distress and ongoing public disclosureunconstitutional. "
ECF No. I at p. 2. Plaintiff
"government

surveillance

seeks an injunction

database"

to "forfeit unlawful

and asks to be awarded $3,000,000,000.00

p. 3.1 In addition, on February 5, 2015, plaintiff filed amotion
Mindful that plaintiff is proceeding

surveillance

as a self-represented

devices"
in damages.

to amend her complaint.

litigant, the court has generously

from a

Id. at

ECF NO.3.
construed

Attached to the complaint are copies of Maryland statutes relating to the recording or
broadcasting of criminal proceedings and extortion by written or verbal threat. ECF No. I at Exhibits.

her motion as a request to amend her relief request to include declaratory relief and punitive damages
for "ongoing public disclosure 24/7 sexual solicitating [sic] messages to TV, radio, cellphone sexting
by hackers." ECF NO.3. Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF NO.2. Because
she appears indigent, she shall be granted leave to proceed without the prepayment of the $400.00
civil filing fee. Her complaint shall, however, be summarily dismissed?
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

S 1915,3 the courts are required

to screen a plaintiffs complaint when

in forma pauperis status has been granted. Therefore, pursuant to this statute, numerous courts have
performed a preliminary screening of non-prisoner complaints. See Fogle v. Blake, 227 F. App'x
542, * I (8th Cir. July 10,2007) (unpublished) (affirming district court's pre-service dismissal of nonprisoner's

S

1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

s.c., 434 F.3d 725,727

S 1915(e)(2)(B));

(4th Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.c.

Michau v. Charleston Cnty ..

S 1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminarily

screen a

non-prisoner complaint); Evans v. Albaugh, 2013 WL 5375781 (N.D. W. Va. 2013) (28 U.S.C.

S

1915( e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in forma pauperis).
A complaint is frivolous ifit is without "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In this case, plaintiff is proceeding pro se. When reviewing a

2

Plaintiffhas filed several prior cases raising civil rights claims regarding alleged wiretapping
by her neighbor at 4234 Shamrock Avenue. See Randolph v. State, Civil Action No. GLR-14-27l3 (D. Md.);
Randolph v. New Technology, Civil Action No. ELH-14.3068 (D. Md.); Randolph v. Baltimore City States
Attorney, Civil Action No. WDQ-14-3l76; and Randolph v.
Attorney General. et al., Civil Action No.
GLR-14.3298 (D. Md.). All cases were summarily dismissed.

u.s.

3

The statute provides in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines that ... (B) the action or appeal-{i) is frivolous or
malicious: (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2

pro se complaint, courts hold it "to less stringent standards than fonnal pleadings drafted by
lawyers ...." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A court, however, may dismiss a claim as
frivolous if "the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless.'" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992)
(citing Neitzke, 404 U.S. at 327).
Under 28 U.S.C.

g

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must also dismiss plaintiffs complaint ifit

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Although a pro se plaintiffs pleadings are
liberally construed, plaintiffs complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise aright to
relief above the speculative level" and that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). This "plausibility standard requires [plaintiff]
to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Francis v.
Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, plaintiff
must articulate facts that, when accepted as true, demonstrate she has stated a claim entitling her to
relief. ld.
Upon generous construction of the complaint, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to set
out a claim entitling her to relief. Sections 2512 and 2513 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code are criminal
statutes and do not provide a basis to impose civil liability. Flowers v. Tandy Corp., 773 F.2d 585,
588 (4th Cir. 1985). Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff asserts she is a crime victim, this court has
no authority to initiate criminal charges.

In our legal system, the decision whether or not to

prosecute, and for what offense, rests with the prosecution. See, e.g., Borderkircher v. Hayes, 434
U.S. 357, 364 (1978). The Supreme Court said in Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,619
(1973): "[I]n Americanjurisprudence

at least, a private citizen lacks ajudicially cognizable interest

3

in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another." See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 F. App'x 122,
123 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished); Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Sibley
v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17,22 (D.D.C. 2012), afJ'd, Civ. No. 12-5198,2012 WL 6603088 (D.C.
Cir. Dec. 6, 2012), cert. denied, _ U.S. _,

133 S. Ct. 1263 (2013). If plaintiff seeks to pursue

criminal charges, she must bring her allegations to the attention of law enforcement authorities.
Further, the factual assertions and legal conclusions raised in the document regarding plaintiffs next
door neighbor and wiretapping devices following plaintiff "everywhere" amount to continuous
nonsensical chatter. The allegations are "so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible
that its true substance, if any, is well disguised," and thus may be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861
F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999); O'Connor v.
United States, 159 F.R.D. 22 (D. Md. 1994).

The document contains no allegations of legal

significance, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and must be dismissed.
For the aforementioned reasons, the court, by separate order, will dismiss the case for failure
to state a claim against defendants.4

Date: February If, 2015
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

4

Plaintiffs motion to amend shall be denied.

4