Muigai v. Schlossberg et al, No. 8:2015cv02559 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/17/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 9/18/15)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Muigai v. Schlossberg et al Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOllthem Dh'isioll * .JOSEPH T. MUIGAI, * Plaintiff, * v. * ROGER SCHLOSSBERG, et aJ., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * Case No.: G,HI-15-2559 * * * * o -<. MEMORANDUM OPINION \ ?,'f""\ \ Complaint -0 ~<7>-n ;,..\- .- ''P ?': ~~~ ...J rP~ ""? \1_ 0 AC ~-;::s ,. damages "in excess ofonc million dollars" against each ol-tjil: naliY\d ~ Defendants :;. ~ was liled on August 28. 20 15. togcthe,' witl9.'lle ful~400~<'; . liling fee. Plaintiffsceks '!;.'", -;n' -0 ",:0 , The abovc-entitled <2c:: ~ * ~ c::l ~ for their role in the litigation of a bankruptcy r-...> ~ .•.• a matter. See ECl' No. I :Although PlaintifT asserts that his claim raises a civil rights violation. nonc of thc named Dcfendants appear to be state actors. Othcr causes of action offered as a basis for the Complaint reference federal criminal statutes j(lr mail and wire fraud. id. at ~ 1. but provide no I~lctual basis I()r a finding of fi'aud. Additionally. there is nothing in the Complaint describing conduct ofthc DelCndants caused a legally cognizable how the alleged injury to PlaintilTwhich cannot be addrcssed through appellate revicw of the bankruptey court's decision in thc underlying case. The sole allegation relates to the !flct that Delendants liled a Motion to Dismiss in the bankruptcy matter. the presiding judge required service on a party in that matter. and PlaintilT disagreed with the manner in whieh the matter was ruled upon. I Jd at ~'i 10-22. Plaintiff does not provide the dates on which any of the events described took place. nor ooes he pro\'idc the case number for the underlying bankruptcy proceeding .. "'I!I! Eel-" No. I. 1 Dockets.Justia.com I'laintiffis of 28 U.S.c. neither a prisoner ~~ 1915(e)(2). nor is he proeeeding 1915A (2006) permitting in I'lJrlna pauperis. sua sponte dismissal Thus. the pro\'isions of complaints which See Sla/limi \'. Uniled Slales. 208 F.3d 1177. 1179 n.4 (10th fail to state a claim are inapplicable. Cir. 2000): Porler \'. Fox. 99 F.3d 271. 273 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996), But this Court has the inherent authority to dismiss Irivolous complaints even when the tiling fee has been paid, See, e.g.. Mallard \'. Uniled Slales Disl. COllrl. 490 U.S, 296. 307-08 (1989) ("Section authorizes courts to dismiss a .trivolous or malicious' action. but there is little doubt they \\'(Jltld have the power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision."): Firsl E. Serenlh SI.. 221 F.3d 362. 364 (2d Cir. 2000). Additinnally. matter jurisdiction 1915(d) ... over a ti'ivolous claim. making dismissal see also Fil= g.e/'{/Id \'. this Court lacks subject prior to service permissible, See Rickell.\' \'. Mid\l'esl Nal 'I Bank. 874 F. 2d 1177. I 181-83 (7th Cir. 1989): j'1'tll1klin\'. Oregan Slale Wel/itre Dil'ision. 662 F. 2d 1337. 1342--43 (9th Cir. 1981), Even ifl'laintifrs assertion that the bankruptcy correct. the instant claim IlH' damages remedy. Where a party is aggrieved proceedings against these Defendants by a decision appellate review of the decision, attorneys involved appellate review process. Accordingly. prejudice. were improperly is not the appropriate issued in a legal proceeding. decided is legal the remedy is A separate Order 1'l)llows. Dated: September Initiation of a separate cause of action Illl' damages against the in the litigation and the party required to be served by the court thwarts the 17.2015 the instant Complaint will be dismissed without k/A- GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge
]]>
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.
