Ibn-Hameed v. Kunz et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/24/2016. (c/m 06/24/2016 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
STEVEN S. IBN-HAMEED, #73700066

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

MICHAEL KUNZ
HARRY GRACE
AMANDA REINITZ
ZANE D. MEMEGER
TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No. DKC-16-2222

*
*
*
*
*

Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned complaint, filed on June 20, 2016, was filed by Plaintiff Steven S.
Ibn-Hameed, a federal prisoner held at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, nor has he submitted an affidavit and motion
seeking in forma pauperis status. Because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and must be dismissed, he will not be required to correct the filing fee
deficiency.
This court is not obliged to ferret through a complaint, searching for viable claims. The
instant complaint “places an unjustifiable burden on defendants to determine the nature of the
claim against them and to speculate on what their defenses might be” and imposes a burden on
the court to sort out the factual basis of any claims fairly raised, making dismissal under Rule 8
appropriate. Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122 (D. Md. 1981); see also Spencer v. Hedges, 838
F.2d 1210 (Table) (4th Cir. 1988). To comply with the rule, a plaintiff must provide enough

detail to illuminate the nature of the claim and allow defendants to respond. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Although district courts have a duty to construe self-represented
pleadings liberally, a plaintiff must nevertheless allege facts that state a cause of action. See
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (duty to construe liberally
does not require courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented).
The complaint is not a model of clarity. Read broadly, it appears to contain a diatribe
concerning Plaintiff’s current detention and prosecution on federal criminal charges in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The assertions consist of bizarre legal conclusions that are
based on the same rhetoric espoused by various anti-government groups such as the Moorish
Americans, Sovereign Citizens, and the Flesh and Blood movement.
A complaint that is totally implausible or frivolous, such as this, may be dismissed sua
sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P 12 (b)(1). See Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999); O=Connor v. United States, 159 F.R.D. 22 (D. Md. 1994);
see also Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273, 277 (7th Cir. 1988) (federal district
judge has authority to dismiss a frivolous suit on his own initiative). Clearly the allegations
asserted by Plaintiff is a product of fantasy or delusional thinking that cannot be addressed by
this court. Plaintiff has not provided any information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion
that some plausible cause of action has accrued on his behalf.

Indeed, the complaint is

incomprehensible and does not provide this court or any potential defendants “fair notice” of the
claims and facts upon which they are based. Thus, the complaint must be dismissed by separate
order which follows.
___________/s/____________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

2