Silbermann v. Shulkin

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/28/2015. (c/m 8/28/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT e<mmiCT OF MARYLAND FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Soulltl'm Dh.;.\';ou 1015 AUG28 CLERK'S OfFICE AT GRr.EHBE~T * .JOEL AARON SILBERMANN, BY * I'laintiff, A IQ: 02 ... [1UlITY * Case No.: G.III-l S-2J 13 v. * DAVID SHULKIN, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION Joel Aaron Silbermann. 2015. accompanied a sell~represented plaintiff. filed this Complaint by a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.! on August 7. He will be granted leave to proceed in fonna pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1915(a)( I) because his financial affidavit indicates that his only source of income is disability payments. Silbennann's statement of facts reads: I .Joel Aaron Silbermann E-l United States I avy am refusing war drali. Effectivc imlllcdiatly I will use armed defence to protect the killing you do in Iraq and Afganistan. Wherefore produce my [illegible] compclme. As an atlounley at law under arrest to my trial. On or about 45 days have lapsed since written citation was issued. Show just cause as to why the charges where reinstaded without just cause. [illegible]. This is a writ ofhabius corpus the charges where dismissed as [illegible] with prejudice by the state. Congress shall make no la\\' reguarding thc freedom of religion choices as to my race gender or ethnic orgin. ECF No. I at 22 t Since August 6. 2015. Silbcnllann has filed eight civil actions in this Court. :! The Court has transcribed the statement of facts as provided in the Complaint. without correcting typographical errors. Silbermann imprisment:' uniformed is requesting damages and an order to "compcll the Prcsident service except one appointment Irom naming David Shulkin as a defendant Silberman of $900 million, an injunction "war dran and to order my releasc or drali me into an year. notified by certified mail." Id. at 3, Apart in the caption of the Complaint. nowhere docs state a claim against him or even mention his name. Silbermann's Complaint has been accepted permits an indigent litigant to commence fee. However. fc)r filing under 28 U.S.c. a court shall dismiss claims deemed frivolous. A complaint is "frivolous" (1992). A "Ii'ivolous" ~ 1915, \\hich an action in federal court without prepaying claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S,c. 25.32 ordering or that fail to state a ~ 1915(e)(2)(8)(i)-(ii), when it is "c1early baselcss:' claim lacks "an arguable malieious the filing Denlon ", /fel"l1al1lle~, 504 U.S. basis either in law or in fact:' Nei/~ke ,'. Williams. 490 U,S. 319. 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably merit less legal theory" and describes "fililtastic or delusional scenarios'" Id, at 32728, In screening pleadings represented a complaint. ofsell~represented plaintitrs a federal judge has an obligation are assumed U,S, 544. 55556 (2007). Nonetheless. court. See lVeller 1'. may not be premised the litigants. See Erick.wIIII'. /'a/"{Ius. 551 U,S, 89, 94 (2007), The sell~ allegations clear failure in the pleading 10 liberally construe to be true. Bell AJial1/ic Corp. liberal construction 1'. TlI"oll/h~1'.550 does not mean that a court can ignore a to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district Dep'l I!fSOC. Sen's .. 90 I F,2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990) ("Fcderal jurisdiction on the mere citation of federal statutes. "): see also Beaudell 1'. Cilyoj" /fall/pIon. 775 F,2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not "conjurc questions never squarely presented"). 2 up Even under the liberal standard accorded to self-represented litigants. Silbermann does not state a cognizable claim, nor does he explain why he is pursuing an action against Defendant in this Court. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. Separate Order to follow. Dated: August 28, 2015 ~E-L---United States District Judge 3

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?