Yi v. Potomac Electric Power Company et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/23/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6/23/16)
U.S. O/STRJf.T COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE I)JSTRICT OF MARYLANI}
JUII 23 A q: 51
CHONG SU YI,
Case No.: G.IH-16-1206
COMI'ANY, el III.,
Court may exercise
it appears that PlaintiJrs
of the First. Fourth. and Fourteenth
,,[ u ]nder Contract
Law, could issues occurred
that he \\as evietcd in January 2016.
1<1. at 2. Plaintiff contends that the
over this action. and. although
that the "jederal
in 2012 and caused $1.300 worth of !lJOd to
with his electric company.
fedcral question jurisdiction
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint
ECI' Nos. 1 & 2. Because PlaintilTappears
is largely incoherent.
stems from a power outage that occurred
Su Yi initiated the present action on April 22. 2016 by liling a Complaint
spoil. See ECF No. I at 2. Plaintiff also allcges. howcvcr.
the Motion shall be granted.
along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
to be indigent.
he citcs to
to the United States Constitution.
that must be decided is whether
during duration of [thc 1 contract be raised alier the
Id. at 2-3. PlaintilTalso
patent and tradcmark
1.300 dollars: plaintiff could have liled for patents and trademarks
exhibit A of P IM 16 CY 0756: of United States District Court for Maryland: Its valued at 20
billion dollars: today ... :. Id. at 4. PlaintitTseeks damages in the amount 01"'2 trillion 20 billion
dollars:' !d. at 5.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1915(e )(2). a court may dismiss a case tiled ill/iml/u
it detennines that the action is trivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
An action is frivolous ifit raises an indisputably merit less legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions. such as Itllltastic or delusional scenarios. Nei/:ke \'. WilliullIs.490
U.S. 319, 327-28. 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). The court is. of course. required to liberally construe a
complaint filed by a selt~represented litigant. and to assume the truth of the allegations in a
complaint. See Ericksolll'.
Punilis. 551 U.S. 89.94. 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007): see uiso Gort/Oll ".
Leeke. 574 F.2d 1147. 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ("[AJ
pro se complaint. should not be dismissed summarily unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of lacts in support of his claim which would entitle him to reliel1.J"').
However. under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915. courts arc required to screen a plaintifrs complaint when
/iJ1'/IW pUliperis status has been granted. Pursuant to this statute. numerous courts have perl
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?