Fawley v. State of Maryland

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 5/4/2012. (c/m 5/7/2012 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOHN FAWLEY

*
Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Defendant.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. AW-12-1317

*
***

MEMORANDUM

On April 30, 2012, the Court received the instant self-represented Complaint, accompanied
by an indigency application. Plaintiff, who is confined in the Eastern Correctional Institution in
Westover, Maryland, seemingly raises a claim for damages alleging that the State of Maryland has
charged him under a name that no longer exists and is denying him access to forms so that he “can
prove that my name was changed.”1 (ECF No. 1).
Allegations in a self-represented complaint are to be liberally construed, and a court should
not dismiss an action for the failure to state a claim “unless after accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from
those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in
support of his claim entitling him to relief.” De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir.
2003) (quoting Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002)). Courts are instructed that selfrepresented filings “however unskillfully pleaded, must be liberally construed.” Noble v. Barnett, 24

In his indigency application, Plaintiff seemingly complains that his “new name” is Larry
Fawley Jr., but officials have him listed under the Certificate and notes a “old name” of John Fawley. (ECF
No. 2) In another attachment, he also references a “new birth Certificate! New Social Security # and Visa to
Russia!” He further states “U.S.A. has stolen my property of over $250,000.00.” (ECF No. 1 at Attachment).
1

F.3d 582, 587 n. 6 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)); Vinnedge v. Gibbs,
550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). However, the complaint must contain sufficient facts “to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim having no arguable basis in law or
fact may be dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (outlining screening process for indigent or prisoner complaints).
Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are “so nutty,”
“delusional,” or “wholly fanciful” as to be simply unbelievable. See Gladney v. Pendelton Corr.
Facility, 302 F.3d. 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 29 (1992).
Plaintiff’s claims plainly fall into this category of allegations.
A state and its agencies are protected from suit for monetary damages by sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment. See Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 56-58 (1996);
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1984). Further, it is wellsettled law that neither the state, nor an arm of the state, is a Aperson@ within the meaning of § 1983.
See Will v. Michigan Dep=t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-65 & 70-71 (1989). The Complaint
against the State of Maryland, the only named Defendant, is therefore subject to dismissal.
Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint as currently prepared is nonsensical. He does not allege that
his name was changed for religious reasons or that the Defendant’s inactions burdened the practice
of his religion. See Malik v. Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir. 1995). He does not specifically
set out how he has been constitutionally grieved. Therefore, while his Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis shall be granted, his action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
2

Date: May 4, 2012.

/s/
Alexander Williams Jr.
United States District Judge

3