IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SEAN A. BISHOP, * Plaintiff, a

v. , * CIVIL NO. JKB-25-1698 TWITTER, . Defendant. * * * * * * x x * * * * * * SEAN A. BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. . es CIVIL NO. JKB-25-1722 □ TWITTER, et al., . □ Defendants. *

* * * * * * * * * * “ * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff filed Complaints in the two above-referenced cases. He also filed Motions to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis in both cases. The Court will consolidate the cases, grant the Motions,- and dismiss the cases. .

Plaintiff filed these cases in forma pauperis: pursuant to

(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in this Court without prepaying the filing fee, To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 5 □ 1915(e)(2)(B)G), (ii). “[U]nder

; a are required 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 28 US.C. § 1915(€)(2)(B)(@), the court must dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint if it fails to state a claim ‘on which relief may be granted.” Jd. This Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe self-represented pleadings, such as the instant complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). In evaluating such a complaint, the factual allegations are assumed to be true.

at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that‘this Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts, - which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs.,

(4th Cir. 1990); - see.also Beaudet v. City of Hampton,

(4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely presented’’). The complaints and the additional correspondence from Plaintiff reflect that he brings

_ similar claims in both cases. The cases will therefore be consolidated. Further, Plaintiff fails to □

state aclaim. Plaintiff raises no allegations that show that he is entitled to any relief. For instance, Plaintiff claims that he is due compensation from Twitter due to an order of the undersigned in case number JKB-24-2150. However, in that case, far from awarding Plaintiff any damages, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff also raises claims relating to labor practices, patent infringement, and other issues. He appears to believe that Twitter

owes him compensation based upon his activity on that platform. In ‘short, like complaint in the previously-dismissed case, the complaints and the correspondence here are insufficient and do not comply with federal pleading requirements. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk SHALL CONSOLIDATE the two above-referenced cases;

+

1 .

. be □

. ' ‘ . .

2. The Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 5, JKB-25-1698; ECF No. 2, JKB- 25-1722) are GRANTED; 3. The Complaints (ECF No. 1, JKB-25-1698; ECF No. 1, JKB-25-1722) are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim; and 4. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and SHALL CLOSE JKB- 25-1698 and JKB-25-1722.

Dated this 720 day of June, 2025. FOR THE COURT: OD amin: ME ia James K. Bredar □ United States District Judge