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)

Download PDF
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

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?