IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MATTHEW JONES, * Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL NO. JKB-25-0842 DISCOVER BANK, et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Matthew Jones filed suit against 233 Defendants, including what appear to be various banks, business, churches, and medical facilities, among others. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Motion will be granted, and Plaintiff will be directed to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action. “[U]nder

, courts are reguiived to screen a plaintiff's complaint when in forma pauperis status has been granted.” Harris v. Janssen Healthcare Prods., Civ. No. ELH-15- 2730,

, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2015). Further, “[u]nder

(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must dismiss a plaintiff's complaint if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Although pleadings filed by a self-represented plaintiff are to be liberally construed, the plaintiff's complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level’ and that ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). In short, Plaintiff fails to allege any cognizable cause of action against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges, for instance, that: In my lifetime, I have never seen a woman in public, in the whole USA. I have driven in travel from Delaware to Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New

Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, and West Virginia, and I have never seen anyone except myself who isn’t a Police Brown of Black. I have only seen Males and She-Males, nearly all are hiding their appearance with Lobster-Caucasian DNA .... (ECF No. 1 at 16.) The remainder of the Complaint is equally nonsensical. (See generally id.)

“ accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). “Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios,”

, such as the ones currently before the Court. The Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate here. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; 2. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case; and 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to MAIL a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff.

DATED this _Z [ day of March, 2025. BY THE COURT: 16 1 fr James K. Bredar United States District Judge