Lee v. United States Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-00673
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHARLENE COLLINS LEE, *

Plaintiff *

v * Civil Action No. 8:24-CV-00673-PX

UNITED STATES * DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, * Defendant. *** MEMORANDUM ORDER Pro se Plaintiff, Charlene Collins Lee (“Collins”), has filed a sprawling and nearly inscrutable lawsuit in which the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) remains the sole defendant. See ECF Nos. 11-27 & 11-44. Collins accuses DOJ of “verbalized white collar cannibalism, which is an extreme of questioning interrogation regarding old events that are money gaining. . . .” ECF No. 11-8 at 7. She says this “cannibalism” turned into “stalking.” Id. Collins demands as relief $500,000.1 Id. at 11. On March 6, 2024, DOJ timely removed the case and thereafter moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint as frivolous. See ECF Nos. 1 & 15. The Clerk timely notified Collins of her right to respond to the motion. ECF No. 16. Collins subsequently filed a spate of correspondence and three indecipherable motions. ECF Nos. 5 &17–26. The filings indeed reflect that Collins had ample opportunity to be heard. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. This Court retains inherent authority to dismiss a complaint as frivolous. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S.D. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989) (noting court’s authority to dismiss

1 The Amended Complaint is otherwise replete with fantastical and spurious allegations against parties no longer in the case. See generally ECF No. 11-8. frivolous claims “even in the absence of [a] statutory provision”); Smith v. Kagan, 616 F. App’x 90 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Frivolous complaints are subject to dismissal pursuant to the court’s inherent authority, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee.”); Ross v. Baron, 493 F. App’x 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012) (same); Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); Smith v. U.S. 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 U.S.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 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Quartey v. Obama, No. PJM-15-567, 2015 WL 13660492, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2015). Collins’ fanciful allegations lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Even when read in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff, the pleading utterly fails to set forth a cause of action as to DOJ. Nor can the Court discern any facts or other information that could permit any inference that Collins maintains a plausible cause of action. Thus, the Amended Complaint is dismissed. Further, dismissal with prejudice is warranted because the Court sees no path forward for Collins to cure its defects. See Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms., Inc., 549 F.3d 618, 630 (4th Cir. 2008) (dismissal with prejudice proper where “amendment would be futile in light of the fundamental deficiencies in plaintiffs’ theory of liability”). Accordingly, it is this 5th day of December, 2024, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ordered that: 1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant United States Department of Justice (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED; 2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiff’s motion to bring forward elements of the case (ECF No. 5), motion to forward United States District Court’s administration (ECF No. 17), and motion to aggregately

consolidate and draw to a close the case (ECF No. 23) ARE DENIED as MOOT. 4. The Clerk SHALL a. TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to the parties, b. MAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Charlene Collins Lee, and c. CLOSE this case.

December 5, 2024 /s/ Date Paula Xinis United States District Judge