Yi v. Democratic National Committee et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; dismissing the Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 6/8/2016. (c/m 06/08/2016 bus, Deputy Clerk)

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

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE, ET AL.,

*

Civil Action No. RWT-16-1172

*
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The above-captioned Complaint was filed on April 20, 2016, together with a Motion
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the
motion shall be granted.
Plaintiff characterizes the facts and arguments in this case as:
DNC and RNC to regulate oversees primaries and presidential elections; i.e.
interstate commerce; as none Federal Agency; and as regulators of interstate
commerce; they denied right to vote of colored person; i.e. plaintiff in violation of
15th amendment.
Plaintiff is registered independent in State of Maryland; colored, race of Oriental.
DNC and RNC regulates primaries in State of Maryland; plaintiff State; as many
others....
Federal election is interstate commerce. DNC and RNC; as NGO, regulate
interstate commerce and has denied colored person; plaintiff, right to vote;
registered independent; in State of Maryland, among others are State of NY, et al;
so called closed States; and mixed states over 31 states; also registered
independent are not able to vote; among them are colored people; in violation of
Sherman Act; i.e. 15 USC 1 and 2;
ECF No. 1, at 2-3. Plaintiff seeks an injunction that the Democratic National Committee and the
Republican National Committee cease and desist operations. Id. at 3.

A court is required to construe liberally a complaint filed by a self-represented litigant.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The 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 allegations in the complaint to be true, Erickson,
551 U.S. at 93. However, as noted by Judge Hollander:
[U]nder 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).
Harris v. Janssen Healthcare Products, No. CV ELH-15-2730, 2015 WL 5897710, at *2
(D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must 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). 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).
Plaintiff’s Complaint here is largely nonsensical and wholly meritless; he has failed to
provide any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that a plausible cause of
action has accrued on his behalf.

2

Accordingly, it is this 8th day of June, 2016, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is hereby
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

/s/
Roger W. Titus
United States District Judge

3