Yi v. Archbishop of New Orleans

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/3/2016. (c/m 06/03/2016 bus, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHONG SU YI,

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS
Defendant

Civil Action No. DKC-16-1122

*

*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The above-captioned complaint was filed on April 15, 2016, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion
shall be granted.
The facts of the case as stated by Plaintiff are:
Archbishop of New Orleans issued Open Letter regarding a corporation opening
for business in March of 2013, and issued directive its own corporation shall not
do business with anyone involved in build out of said corporation. Subsequently
said Archbishop issued Second Open Letter to its cohort corporations to allow
participating build out Corporations to let transaction to take place;
ECF No. 1, p. 2.
Plaintiff describes his argument as:
Constitution may come before the court through ‘we the people’; via qualified
‘we the people’; and Plaintiff asserts Plaintiff is qualified part of ‘we the people’
to let Constitution come before the court. Under first amendment challenge;
controversy does not meet “state’s right to categorize’ and “states’ best interest”;
then its unconstitutional; i.e. if categorization is incongruent, if there Is less
intrusive way to achieve same thing; respectively. Archbishop of New Orleans
could only have written open letter, on or about, March 2013 ipso facto in the
prior ordo cogniscendi; through digital format; its follow letter(s) subsumes under
it;
This is in violation of first amendment; in both State’s right to categorize; and
states’ best interest. State’s right to categorize could not give religion preferential
treatment; allowing relation to have use of digital format; thus incongruous

categorization. In State’s best interest, allowing Religion to access digital format;
without constitutional mandate, violates due process of the law; when Prohibition
had to obtain constitutional mandate; to repeal it; there is less intrusive way to let
religion intentionally violate constitution.
Id., pp. 3.
Plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering “all laws enabling archbishop to operate under
digital format including sermon recorded in digital format; collection via digital format et al.”
Id., p. 4. He also seeks an injunction ordering “all operations of any corporations including
archdiocese; archbishop must not have operational power and or authorities” (id., pp. 4-5) as
well as an order directing the archdiocese of New Orleans, “cease and desist operation.” Id. p.
5.
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 selfrepresented 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
2

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
this case.

Date:

June 3, 2016

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3