Yi v. Social Security Administration et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 7/29/2013. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/29/13)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHONG SU YI
*
Plaintiff,
v.
*
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
WHITE HOUSE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. PJM-13-1826
*
*
*
*
*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On June 21, 2013, the Court received for filing a fee-paid, self-represented civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 submitted by Chong Su Yi (Yi@), a resident of Silver Spring, Maryland. The
Complaint is not a model of clarity.
Affording the self-represented complaint a generous
interpretation, Yi seeks an injunction to “close Congress,” abolish income taxes and refunds, have
government offices such as the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and U.S. Post Office open
during regular business hours, and to “close avenues for members of public official not of authorized
agenda to access public private domaine.” (ECF No. 1). Yi invokes this Court’s federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He references a “unlawful search and seizure” related to the
SSA hours of operation and a six-month wait as to claim review, which he refers to as an “unlawful
blanket dragnet.” Yi further complains that Congress’s failure to act has resulted in the diminished
office hours and closure of the SSA offices in violation of his liberty. In addition, he takes issue
with the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, makes nonsensical references to the
Legislative and Executive branches of government, “superior” laws, the authority of the Federal
Reserve and the Department of Treasury to coin money, the free exercise of religion, the broad
scope of public officials’ speech to media outlets, and composes numerous other deluded statements.
He accuses the named Defendants of discrimination and seeks $10,000.00.00 against each party.
Yi has filed two separate amended complaints, which fare no better than his original
Complaint. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3). He reiterates the assertions made previously and adds claims of
damages against Defendants for alleged tortious conduct, breach of contract, and conspiracies and
seeks upwards of $49,450,000,000.00 in damages and tracts of real property.
Yi has paid the filing fee. It is well established, however, that a court has broad inherent
power sua sponte to dismiss an action, or part of an action, which is frivolous or vexatious. See
Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (district
courts have the authority to dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte, notwithstanding the payment of
the filing fee); Baker v. Director, United States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
(per curiam) (“[A] trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte without notice ‘where the claimant
cannot possibly win relief.” ’ (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)));
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 her own initiative); Brown v. District Unemployment
Compensation Board, 411 F. Supp. 1001 (D.C. 1975) (district court has inherent power to control
the judicial process and dismiss frivolous or harassing action sua sponte). This Court has the
discretion to dismiss a case at any time, notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee or any portion
thereof, if it determines that the action is factually or legally frivolous. The Court finds that the
instant matter is subject to dismissal for the failure to state a claim. A separate order follows.
/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
July 29, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?