Solomon v. Dawson

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/18/2013. (c/m 7/18/2013 eb)(ebs2, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON,
Plaintiff

*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. PWG-13-1951

*
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE HERMAN C.
DAWSON,
Defendant

*
*
******

MEMORANDUM
Cargyle Brown Solomon ("Solomon"), a self-represented Plaintiff, brings this action
against Prince George's County Circuit Court Judge Herman C. Dawson under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.c.

9

1964(a) ("RICO") for conduct occurring

during state custody proceedings involving Plaintiffs minor child. ECF NO.1. After reviewing
Solomon's pleadings, the Court will grant Solomon's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and
summarily dismiss the Complaint.
Under 28 U.S.C.

9

1915, an indigent litigant may commence an action in federal court

without prepaying the filing fee. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute
allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

9

1915(e)(2)(B).\

1 The Honorable Herman C. Dawson also may be dismissed from this action based on judicial immunity. See In re
Mills, 287 Fed. App'x 273, 279 (4th Cir. 2008) ("Judges performing judicial acts within their jurisdiction are entitled
to absolute immunity from civil liability claims.") (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,11-12 (1991».

The complaints of self-represented litigants are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal
district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a self-represented litigant
to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiffs allegations are
assumed to be true. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citing Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-56 (2007)). Liberal construction does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the
pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v.
Dep't of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for "all civil actions").
A plaintiff seeking civil damages under RICO must allege and prove four elements: "(1)
conduct [causing injury to business or property], (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a pattern, (4) of
racketeering activity." Sedima SP.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1995). Plaintiff alleges
only personal injuries and RICO is not available for the redress of purely personal injuries. See
Drake v. B.F Goodrich Co., 782 F.2d 638, 644 (6th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, a RICO claim may
not be based on allegations of civil rights violations, such as Plaintiff alleges. See Bowen v.
Oistead, 125 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 1997). Rather, "[ e]nacted to strengthen criminal and civil
remedies against organized crime, RICO provides a private right of action for any person
'injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of its substantive prohibitions.' "
Dahlgren v. First Nat'l Bank of Holdrege, 533 F.3d 681,689 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

9

1964(c)). Consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a claim, and sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiffs

9

Complaint is appropriate. See Fed. R. 28 U.S.C.

2

1915(e)(2)(B).

A separate order follows.

3