The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RAY HURT,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No.: DKC-21-258
STATE OF MARYLAND,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court received the above-captioned complaint on January 28, 2021, from Plaintiff Ray
Hurt, a prisoner incarcerated at North Branch Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland.
Mr. Hurt also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which the court now grants.
The complaint in its entirety reads as follows:
“Eighth Amendment Claim: State of Maryland and District of Columbia have
evidence to attest that Defendant is inhabited bodily by extraterrestrials and that he
is god – people of the world cannot think about issues correctly because of
Defendant’s incarceration, and Defendant provides as evidence for these things,
affidavits written by the judges of this court U.S. Courthouse, Maryland.”
ECF No. 1 at 3.1 Although captioned as a complaint, Mr. Hurt seeks release from prison and
erasure of his criminal record, relief that is available only through a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Id. at 4. Additionally, Mr. Hurt asks that “NASA and SETI [be] contacted to offer ability
to offer resources to Defendant as is required by NASA and SETI. And same thing provided to
girl who’s (sic) alias is The Caterpillar; found on the White 1.” Id.
1 No attachments to the complaint purporting to be the evidence promised were received
from Mr. Hurt.
Whether the pleading is construed as a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the claim asserted is meritless and the
action must be dismissed. This court is obliged by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen prisoner
complaints and dismiss any complaint that is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In deciding whether a complaint is frivolous, “[t]he district court
need not look beyond the complaint’s allegations . . . . It must, however, hold the pro se complaint
to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally.” See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). Additionally, under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) a case shall be dismissed at any time if the court determines
that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. “The purpose of the PLRA was not . . . to impose
indiscriminate restrictions on prisoners’ access to the federal courts,” but ‘“to curb the
substantively meritless prisoner claims that have swamped the federal courts.’” McLean v. United
States, 566 F.3d 391, 397 (4th Cir. 2009) quoting Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 117 (3d Cir.
2000) (emphasis in original).
The instant complaint is frivolous. Factually frivolous claims involve “allegations that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To
determine if a claim is frivolous, the court may “apply common sense.” Nasim v. Warden, Md.
House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Here, Mr. Hurt’s claim that he
is “inhabited bodily by extraterrestrials” is the sort of fanciful allegation that qualifies as frivolous
and for which no cogent response may be formulated.
Mr. Hurt has received a “strike” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in a prior case
filed in this court. See Hurt v. Fourth Cir. Court of Md., et al., Civil Action PWG-16-2506 (D.
Md. 2016) at ECF No. 6 (Order dismissing and issuing a strike). The dismissal of this action
constitutes another strike. Mr. Hurt is forewarned that his right to file an action in federal court at
public expense will be greatly curtailed if he has three actions or appeals dismissed under of 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Specifically, if he has “on three or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, he will not be permitted to file an action in forma
pauperis unless” he can establish that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Additionally, dismissal with or without prejudice for any of the grounds
enumerated in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) constitutes a “strike” under the Act. Lomax v.
Ortiz-Marquez, _U.S._, 140 S.Ct. 1721, 1724 (2020), see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
This case is dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous or
malicious and this dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A separate order
follows.
February 4, 2021 /s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge