Akinro v. Sears

Full title: FRANCIS AKINRO Plaintiff, v. SEARS, et al. Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Maryland

Date published: Jun 7, 2010

CIVIL ACTION NO. WMN-10-1453 (D. Md. Jun. 7, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. WMN-10-1453.

June 7, 2010

MEMORANDUM

WILLIAM NICKERSON, District Judge

Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland who holds himself out as a "Professor," "Assistant Attorney General" for the State of Maryland," "U.S. Solicitor General" and Department of Justice employee, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 1331 action on June 1, 2010, naming a Sears Roebuck ("Sears") department store at a Baltimore County, Maryland shopping mall as Defendant. His statement of facts alleges that:

"Since 2007, I have applied for Defendant's credit card up [to] fifty times both in the state of California and the state of Maryland. In all this, Defendant deny me of their credit card and line of credit and said I do not have good credit. Their conspirator are opening fire on me and prevent me from buying things on credit before they finally kill me."

Paper No. 1 at 2.

In his relief request, Plaintiff seeks the award of $497,000,000,000,000.00 and court order requiring Sears to issue him a credit card. Id. at 3. He further asks that life imprisonment and the death penalty be imposed on a Sears's "conspirator." Although Plaintiff's indigency application contains information the Court finds suspect, ¹ he shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

1 Plaintiff claims that he receives $3,063.00 in monthly retirement income; has been employed by the U.S. Department of Justice since July of 2009; and has $200,000.00 accumulated at four separate banks. Paper No. 2.

This Court may preliminarily review the Complaint allegations before service of process and dismiss them sua sponte if satisfied that the Complaint has no factual or legal basis. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1314 (4^th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4^th Cir. 1995). As explained by the Supreme Court in Neitzke: "Examples of [factually baseless lawsuits] are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 328.

Even when affording the pro se Complaint and accompanying materials a generous construction, the Court finds no basis to allow the action to go forward or to require supplementation. The Complaint allegations are incredible and fail to set out a colorable federal claim. The matter shall be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A separate Order follows.