Yi v. Board of Elections of Montgomery County Of Maryland et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 9/9/2016. (c/m 9/12/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHONG SU YI,
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et ai.,
*
Civil Action No. PWG-16-1850
*
Defendants
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a Complaint, ECF No.1,
together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, ECF NO.2. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion 'shall be granted.
The Complaint characterizes the facts and arguments in this case as:
Plaintiff is naturalized U.S. citizen as of 1978 and could not run for presidency.
Plaintiff could not vote for self; for presidency in primary and general election.
Because plaintiff is trying to run for president and is barred by election process,
Which includes primary and general election even when plaintiff is naturalized
citizen, and is governed by county board of elections and state board of elections.
Current voting process violates 15th amendment. November general election is
unconstitutional.
Compl. 2-3.
Plaintiff also perceives the limitations on his ability to run for President as a
violation of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks entry of
an order that the "Maryland board of elections and County Board of Elections ...
cease
operation in November general election." Id. at 3.
This Complaint is tiled under 28 U.S.C.
9
1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant
to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To guard against
possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a court to dismiss any claim that is frivolous
or malicious,
9
or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). In this context, this Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating a pro se complaint, a plaintiff s allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at 93 (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Nonetheless, liberal construction
does not mean that a court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth
a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir.1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.1985)
(stating a district court may not "conjure up questions never squarely presented"). In making this
determination, "[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint's allegations .... It must
hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must
read the complaint liberally." White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989).
It is true that a naturalized citizen cannot become President. See U.S. Const. art. 2,
9
1;
Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) ('''Under our Constitution, a naturalized
citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to
the Presidency.'" (quoting Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913))). But, Plaintiff has not
provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that some plausible cause of
action has accrued on his behalf based on his inability as a naturalized citizen to run for
President. A separateOrder followsdismissingthis case.!]
I~
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
2
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?