Randolph v. US Attorney General Department of Justice

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 4/2/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 4/2/15-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MISS CATHERINE RANDOLPH
Plaintiff,
v.

*

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ERIC HOLDER, JR.
Defendant.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-15-916

*
*****
MEMORANDUM

On March 30, 2015, plaintiff, Catherine Randolph, a resident of Shamrock Avenue in
Baltimore, Maryland, filed this self-represented action, naming Eric Holder, Jr., the United States
Attorney General, as the defendant.1 She predicates jurisdiction on “Unfair discrimination ‒
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt organization with intentional disclosure (wiretap with
declaratory messages to social media).”
In her statement of facts plaintiff states:
“I am requesting the U.S. District Court of Maryland to grant my relief –recovery
of civil damages 18 U.S.C. [§] 2520 authorized – stop intentional disclosure
(wiretap) prohibited advertising violation 18 U.S.C. [§] 2513 (judicial forfeit).
U.S. Attorney General of Maryland has the power to do so however refuse here in
violation 18 U.S.C. [§] 2521 and 47 U.S.C. [§] 743 (sanctions). Please consider
good faith reliance on court warrant, grand jury subpoena, and law enforcement to
stop illegal wiretap by unknown defendants (home business at 4234 Shamrock
Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21206) commercial fraud is prohibited. I am
deprived due process of law, rights to free speech, free press and against
unreasonable searches by 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment. I need equal justice – 7th
Amendment. Please declare action to stop intentional intercept (wiretap)
violation 42 U.S.C. [§] 1985, 18 U.S.C. [§] 2513, and recovery civil damages 18
U.S.C. [§] 2520 – mandate grant relief: statutory damages, punitive damages, loss
time,- loss wages → false arrest public court record disclosure – case closed (not
guilty) and litigation cost (pro se).”

1

Mr. Holder is no longer the Attorney General.

ECF No. 1 at 2.2

Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the form of a

protection order, declaratory relief, and $3 Billion dollars in damages. 3 Id. at pg. 3.
Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because she appears
indigent, plaintiff’s motion to proceed, without the prepayment of the civil filing fee, shall be
granted. Her complaint shall, however, be summarily dismissed.
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides:
(2) 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.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts are required to screen a plaintiff’s 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 Michau v. Charleston
Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to
preliminary screening of a non-prisoner complaint); Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th
2

Accompanying the complaint are copies of federal statutes relating to wire or radio
communications of common carriers and civil damages for disclosure of said communications.
ECF No. 1 at Ex. 1.
3

The court observes that plaintiff has filed several prior cases regarding alleged
wiretapping and interception of communications. See Randolph v. State of Maryland, Civil
Action No. GLR-14-2713 (D. Md.); Randolph v. New Technology, Civil Action No. ELH-143068 (D. Md.); Randolph v. Baltimore City States Attorney, Civil Action No. WDQ-14-3176 (D.
Md.); Randolph v. U.S. Attorney General, Civil Action No. GLR-14-3298 (D. Md.); Randolph v.
United States, et al., Civil Action No. JFM-14-3609 (D. Md.); Randolph v. U.S. Attorney, Civil
Action No. CCB-15-9 (D. Md.); Randolph v. Holder, Civil Action No. JKB-15-314 (D. Md.);
Randolph v. Holder, et al., Civil Action No. JFM-15-552 (D. Md.); and Randolph v. U.S.
Attorney General, Civil Action No. CCB-15-785 (D. Md.). All complaints were summarily
dismissed.
2

Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) to non-prisoner actions); Evans v. Albaugh, 2013 WL 5375781
(N. D. W.Va. 2013) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in forma
pauperis).
A complaint is frivolous if it is without “an arguable basis in law or fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In this case, plaintiff is self-represented. When reviewing a
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant, courts hold it “to less stringent standards than
formal 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must also dismiss plaintiff’s complaint if it
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Although a self-represented plaintiff’s
pleadings are to be liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint must contain factual allegations
sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and that “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). It is
axiomatic that “the requirements for pleading a proper complaint are substantially aimed at
assuring that the defendant be given adequate notice of the nature of a claim being made against
him ....” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). In addition, Supreme Court
precedent leaves no doubt that the factual allegations in a complaint “must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, and “must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Although the plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” it asks for “more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Thus, when a complaint

3

pleads facts that are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. This “plausibility standard
requires a plaintiff to demonstrate more than ‘a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.’” See Francis, 588 F.3d at 193 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
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, 588-89 (4th Cir.
1985).4 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 American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 Fed.
App’x 122, 123 (3d Cir. 2009); 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). 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 speak for
themselves. They amount to rambling, convoluted statements of blanket criminal and civil rights
violations. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1). See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d
Cir. 1988). The document contains no allegations of legal significance, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, and must be dismissed.
4

To the extent that 18 U.S.C. § 2520 permits a civil action, plaintiff has failed to set out a
basis for such a claim, as discussed, infra.
4

For the aforementioned reasons, the court hereby dismisses the case for failure to state a
claim against defendant. A separate Order follows.

Date: April 2, 2015

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

5