Yi v. Archbishop of New Orleans et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/23/2015. (c/m 12/23/15 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHONG SU YI,
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Civil Action No. DKC-15-3703
The above-captioned Complaint was filed on December 3, 2015 , together with a Motion
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall be
The Complaint alleges that:
On or about 2013 Archbishop of New Orleans as part of Archdiocese of New
Orleans published open letter, exercise of boycott; against Plan Parenthood; in
that any company participate in build out of Plan Parenthood may not participate
in any corporation under control of Archdioceses of New Orleans.
But Archbishop et al should not have been able to enumerate a policy affecting
incongruent corporation not of set of Archdiocese.
ECF No. 1, p. 1.
Archbishop spoke as religion, but religion is not a part of ‘general Welfare’
enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1; only items allowed under expenditure
via taxation. Therefore vis-à-vis; archdiocese do not qualify to exist under
expenditure of tax money of general Welfare, thus Archbishop open letter; due
from tax vis-à-vis general Welfare ipso facto prior in the ordo cogniscendi
Archdiocese of New Orleans could not function as Corporation trading as; since
the corporation subsumes under general Welfare, which Archdiocese could not be
Because Constitution does not recognize tax exempt; tax could be collected; but
cannot be exempted; which is general welfare taxation and expenditure.
Id., p. 2.
Plaintiff does not allege suffering a direct injury as a result of the statement made, and it
is unclear what relief he seeks. Id. at p. 4.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), a court may dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if
it determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
An action is frivolous if it raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). As noted by Judge Hollander:
To be sure, this court is required to construe liberally a complaint filed by
a self-represented litigant, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and to
examine the complaint using a less stringent standard than for those drafted by
attorneys. Id.; see also Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978).
This court must allow the development of a potentially meritorious case, see
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), and
must assume the complaint allegations to be true. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93.
However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts are required to screen a plaintiff’s
complaint when in forma pauperis status has been granted. Pursuant to this
statute, numerous courts have performed a preliminary screening of non-prisoner
complaints. See, e.g., Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th
Cir. 2006) (applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminary screening of a nonprisoner complaint); Evans v. Albaugh, 2013 WL 5375781 (N.D.W.Va. 2013) (28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) authorizes dismissal of complaints filed in forma pauperis).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must dismiss a plaintiff’s
complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Although
pleadings filed by a self-represented plaintiff are to be liberally construed, the
plaintiff’s complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and that “state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Harris v. Janssen Healthcare Products, No. CV ELH-15-2730, 2015 WL 5897710, at *2 (D.
Md. Oct. 6, 2015).
Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that
some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf. A separate Order follows dismissing
Date: December 23, 2015
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?