Silbermann v. Thompson, No. 8:2015cv02345 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/28/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/28/15)

Download PDF

Silbermann v. Thompson Doc. 3 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOlltltem DiI';s;o/l 10/5 AUG28 A I(): 0' CLERK'S OFfiCE AT GREENBELT * .JOEL AARON SILBERMANN, BY-- __ OEPIJTY .. * Plaintiff, * Case No.: G.HI-I5-B-l5 v. * EVERALD F. THOMPSON, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION Joel Aaron Silbermann. August 7. 2015. accompanied a selt:represented tiled this Complaint by a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis his Iinancial aflidavit plaintiff. pursuant to 28 U.S.c. * that his only source of income is disability statement Silbennann's He will be 1915(a)(I) indicates on because payments. of facts rcads: I This is an disbarment complaint for sound legal advicc. Disbar my attourney and prcvent him Ihlln practicing law whcras ti'ce the prisoner from deplorable conditions. Until all appeal remidies arc lost. The food in your county jails arc not frcsh fruits and vegistibles Acording to USDA law. 1 want to be compensated tor m)' inadiquite health. ECF I at 2.2 Silbennann "disbannent 1 Since August is requesting damages of $900 million and an injunction and imprisl1lent for fair justice:' 6. 2015. Silbennann :! The Coun has transcribed Id. at 3. Silbennann has filed eight civil actions ordering docs not specify in this Court. the statement of facts as provided in the Complaint. without correcting typographical errors. Dockets.Justia.com reasons why he believes Defendant's actions wcre wrongfiJl or should subject him to disbannent. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules ofCivill'rocedure governs the requirements fiJr stating a proper claim fiJr relief: A pleading which sets forth a claim fiJr relief ... shall contain I) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends. unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds for jurisdiction to support it. 2) a ShOl1and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. and 3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Reliefin the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests:' S\I'ierkie\l"ic:: \'. Soremu N,A.. 534 U.S. 506. 512 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Silbermann's Complaint has heen accepted for filing under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915. which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the tiling fee. To guard against abuse of this privilege. a court must screen and dismiss claims deemed frivolous. malicious or that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). In screening a complaint. a federal judge has an ohligation to liherally construe the pleadings of self:represented litigants. See Erickson \'. Pun/us. 551 U.S. 89. 94 (2007). The self:represented plaintiffs allegations are assumed to he true. Bell AI/unlic Corp. 1'. Twomh/y. 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 \'. Dep'l o{Soe. Sen's .. 90 I F.2d 387. 391 (4th Cir. 1990) ("Federal jurisdiction may not be premised on the mere citation of federal statutes.'"); see a/so ileal/dell v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274. 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not '"conjure up questions never squarely presented"). Even under the liberal standard accorded to selt:represented litigants. Silbermann does not state a cognizable claim, nor does he explain why he is pursuing an action against Defendant in this court. The Complaint does not provide Defendant lair notice of Plaintiffs claim nor the grounds upon which it rests. Accordingly. this case will be dismissed. Separate Order to follow. Dated: L/£-- August 28. 2015 GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.