Lanahan v. Division of Correction et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 10/29/2015. (c/m 10/29/15 bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN,

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*
*

DIVISION OF CORRECTION, et aI.,

Civil Action No. JFM-15-2510

*
***

Defendants

MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned complaint was filed on August 17, 2015 , together with a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall be granted.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was almost killed at the Patuxent Institution because
he knows how to "observe for homeland security."
stopped by the U.S. Army and plaintiffs

Plaintiff states that drug supplies were

cousin. Plaintiff also claims that when the Maryland

House of Correction was shut down "a lot of people from Africa Muslems [sic] got jobs in the
division of correction they did all they could to make an example out of me."

ECF 1, p. 3.

Plaintiff states that drug suppliers from Africa hired "a front" and now Klid El Sayed will not let
him go home.

He indicates that a Muslim mafia is after him and his family.

He asks to be

placed it the federal witness protection program, to have his record expunged, for monetary
damages, and to be given a new name. Id. He states that he has done all he can to have the Secret
Service conduct an investigation on him, even threatening to kill the President. Id.
A complaint that is totally implausible or frivolous, such as this, may be dismissed sua
sponte for lack 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). Clearly the allegations
asserted by plaintiff are the product of fantasy or delusional thinking that cannot be addressed by
this court. Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion
that some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf. As such, the case shall be
dismissed. A separate Order follows.

1. Frede ck Motz
United tates District Judge