Yi v. Montgomery County et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 6/23/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6.24.16)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHONG SU YI,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et aI.,
Civil Action No. PWG-16-1098
The above-captioned Complaint was filed on April 13, 2016, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF NO.2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall
be granted. Plaintiff also has filed a Supplement to the Complaint. ECF NO.3.
The Complaint characterizes the facts and arguments in this case as:
4. Facts ofthe case are:
Montgomery County parking management has been issuing parking citations, to
vehicle operated by Plaintiff; not owned by plaintiff. Per Ms. Ham at Parking
Management; enforcement officer may boot; or tow the vehicle for none payment
without first going to court and obtain Court's order. Because of Ms. Ham's
statement; while all the parking citations are in court; being contested; Plaintiff
could no longer engage in political protest statement; in unconstitutionality of
6. Argument of the cases are:
Terry Stop; Terry v Ohio (1968) allows police or officer of the law; to stop the
public without warrant form court; in lawful violation of 4th amendment; and
For parking citation there are no lawful warrantless search equivalent to Terry
When State enters home with search warrant; to alter the stereo to search for serial
number; not allowed in Search warrant results invalidation of serial number.
To search for unpaid parking citation vehicle; which is 'and effects' of 4th
amendment; police need search warrant; with probable cause.
Court will not issue search warrant for 15 dollars per incident; or 100. to engage;
police could not have list of offending vehicles; because to compile list, police
need to engage search; tag number and description of car is also part of 'and
effects'; Therefore, police need court's warrant.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding the booting and towing of vehicles for unpaid
parking citations. Id. at 4.
This Complaint is filed under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant
to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To guard against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is frivolous
or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
~ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). In this context, this Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating a pro se complaint, a plaintiffs
allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at 93 (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Nonetheless, liberal construction
does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth
a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir.1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985)
(stating a district court may not "conjure up questions never squarely presented"). In making this
determination, "[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint's allegations .... It must
hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must
read the complaint liberally." White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that
some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf based on his receipt of parking
citations. A separate Order follows dismissing this case.
Paul W. G.mm
United 8t es 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?