Yi v. Potomac Electric Power Company et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/23/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 6/23/16)

FilED

U.S. O/STRJf.T COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE I)JSTRICT OF MARYLANI}
Southern J)ivisionD1b

~8lNROF MARYLAND
JUII 23 A q: 51

*

CLERK"~S OFFIe:::
AT GRtEJWELT

CHONG SU YI,

8'1'

*

--~

..

"I""'IT'{

Plaintiff,

*
Case No.: G.IH-16-1206

*
POTOMAC ELECTRIC
COMI'ANY, el III.,

POWER

*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANJ)UM
PlaintitTChong

the Complaint

Court may exercise

his relationship

it appears that PlaintiJrs

of the First. Fourth. and Fourteenth

,,[ u ]nder Contract

Law, could issues occurred

temlinated[.]"
that "[tlor

that he \\as evietcd in January 2016.

1<1. at 2. Plaintiff contends that the

over this action. and. although
Amendments

that the "jederal

principal

in 2012 and caused $1.300 worth of !lJOd to

with his electric company.

fedcral question jurisdiction

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint

contending

*

ECI' Nos. 1 & 2. Because PlaintilTappears

is largely incoherent.

stems from a power outage that occurred

which tenninated

relationship

*

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.

provisions

*

the Motion shall be granted.

Although
complaint

*

OPINION

along with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
to be indigent.

*

question"

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

\'aguely references

patent and tradcmark

1.300 dollars: plaintiff could have liled for patents and trademarks

in

law.

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

if

pUlipais

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

ill

/iJ1'/IW pUliperis status has been granted. Pursuant to this statute. numerous courts have perl<JrIned

a preliminary screening of non-prisoner complaints. See. e.g .. ,I[ic/Wli \'. Clwrles/oll

emy.. s.c..

434 F.3d 725. 727 (4th Cir. 20(6) (applying 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2)(B) to preliminary screening
of a nonprisoner complaint): !!urris \'. .Jullssell !!eui/heare

Prot/lic/s. No. CY ELlI-15-2730.

2015 WL 5897710. at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 6. 2(15) (noting that numerous courts have dismissed
non-prisoner complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915). Under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). the
court must dismiss a complaint if it tails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Thus.
although pleadings filed by a se\l~represented plaintiff arc to be liberally construed. a complaint
must contain factual allegations sufficient ..to raise a right to relief above the speculati\'e level"

and that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell AI/antic

1'. TWlJl11h/y,

550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007).
Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that
some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf: or that any such cause of action would
fall within this Court's jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff appears to seck federal question
jurisdiction, there are no facts alleged in the Complaint supporting any such causes of action.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order follows.

h::~-

Ce!~
"!J/ZO/,k

George J. Hazcf
United States District Judge

Date

3