Arthur v. United States Dist of Indiana Southern Dist

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 1:22-cv-03203
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BRENTLELAND ARTHUR, Plaintiff, v. . . UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF INDIANA THE US FEDERAL RESERVE GROCERS Civil Action No. JKB-22-3203 ASSOCIATION, PERDUE AG CENTER VINCENNES, IN., . and US.D.A. Defendants,

MEMORANDUM ORDER On December 9, 2022, plaintiff Brent Leland Arthur filed correspondence which was construed as a civil complaint. ECF No. 1. Arthur filed additional correspondence on December 28, 2022. ‘ECF No. 3-4. For reasons stated below, the complaint shall be dismissed. This Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the allegations are frivolous. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct jor S.D. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (noting _court’s authority to dismiss frivolous claims “even in the absence of [a] statutory provision”); Smith v. Kagan, 616 F, App’x 90 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (mem.) (“Frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the court’s inherent authority, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee.”); Ress v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir, 2012) (unpublished) (same); Fitzgerald y. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); Smith v. US. Dep’t of Def, No. ELH-21-1836, 2021 WL 3367821, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2021); Ausar- El v. Hogan, No. PJM-19-3040, 2020 WL 1187139, at *1 (D. Md. Mar, 11, 2020). Cf 28 ULS.C, .

§ 1915(e)(2) (requiring screening of complaints and dismissal of frivolous claims when plaintiffs proceed in forma pauperis). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” as the “term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v Williams, 490 US. 319,325 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Quartey v. Obama, No. PIM-15-567,

WL 13660492, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2015). In his complaint, plaintiff asks this Court to file federal charges against defendants for “purposefully providing thru [sic] a NATO (in US) logistics chain, only .. . * for average citizens . and other average public, . . . beneficially modified food stutts (i.¢., anti-nutrition) for the purpose □ of (among others) weaking the U.S. Military Active Reserve Forces and the people of U.S. those Military personnel would arm as ready combatants.” ECF No. 1. Plaintiff furthers asks that charges be filed against several individuals for “cock blocking.” /d. at 2. Plaintiff's subsequent ~

correspondence appears to request an investigation into an Army soldier, not plaintiff, being transferred to Germany prior to the Gulf War. ECF No. 3. None of the documents filed in this case state an understandable claim for relief. Even when read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint and accompanying documents _ fail to provide any non-frivolous information that might lead to a reasonable conclusion that plaintitt has some plausible cause of action. Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff seeks a criminal prosecution of someone, he has no legally protected interest in the prosecution of others. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 US. 614, 619 (1973) C[T]n American jurisprudence at least, a private

citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); see also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 Fed. App’x 122, 123 (3d Cir. 2009); Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 DC. Cir. 1997); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012) aff'd, Civ.

2 □ .

No. 12-5198, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012), cert denied, 133 S. Ct. 1263, 185 L.Ed.2d 183 (2013); Speight v. Meehan, Civ. No. 08-3235, 2008 WL 5188784, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008). Therefore, the complaint shall be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority. Accordingly, it is, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Complaint is DISMISSED; 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case; and 3. The Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

Dated this ZG day of Z en 2» 2023. FOR THE COURT: Lo) rove TA | (Qfer James K. Bredar Chief Judge