United States District Court, D. MarylandApr 8, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. L-10-865 (D. Md. Apr. 8, 2010)


April 8, 2010


BENSON LEGG, Chief Judge

Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland who holds himself out as "U.S. Solicitor General," "Assistant Attorney General," and "Professor," filed this action against Walmart Department Store. Docket No. 1. He raises fantastic claims that he has an account with Walmart that has been "taken over" by various Nigerian nationals to prevent him from using any credit card in the United States, and the government opened accounts at Walmart for hundreds of millions of dollars and the Nigerian nationals are preventing Plaintiff from receiving his part of the monies. He asks the Court to Order Walmart to pay him "four hundred thousand trillion" dollars and to remove the block from his credit card account. He also requests that the Nigerian nationals and others, including a federal court judge, be sentenced to prison for violating federal consumer law. Accompanying the Complaint are documents captioned as a motion, a service document, and an arrest warrant, which contain, in part, fanciful and incredible statements. Id. at Attachments.

Plaintiff has filed neither the civil filing fee nor moved for indigency status. He shall not be required to cure this deficiency. 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 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th 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.

Plaintiff's Complaint and attachments speak for themselves. They are replete with fantastic illusions. The action shall be dismissed for the failure to state a claim and without service of process on Defendants. A separate Order shall follow.