Burnett et al v. State of Maryland et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
* 	Civil No. 26-475-BAH
JEROME ANDREW BURNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND ET AL.,
*
Defendants.
*
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jerome Andrew Burnett (“Burnett”) filed the above-captioned complaint pro se, a
“motion for enforcement of judgments,” ECF 3, and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF 6. 	For the reasons stated below, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be
granted, the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and the motion at
ECF 3 will be denied as moot.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. requires this Court to conduct an initial screening of
this complaint and also mandates dismissal of any complaint that (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lomax v. Ortiz-
Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020). The Court is mindful of its obligation to construe liberally
a complaint filed by a self-represented litigant. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in a
pleading to allege facts which set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901
F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.
Case 1:26-cv-00475-BAH Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely presented”). Here, to
the extent the Court can even decipher the precise basis of Burnett’s claim, it must be dismissed
because Defendants enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Burnett brings suit1 against the State of Maryland, the “Edward Frank Borgerding District
Court Building (District Court for Baltimore City, District 1),” the District Court of Maryland for
Carroll County, and the Attorney General of Maryland (collectively “Defendants”),2 citing to
twenty-two federal civil and criminal statutes, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Bill
of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as the legal bases for his
claims.3 See ECF 1, at 1–5. Burnett alleges that “[t]he Defendant(s) had no probable cause to find
. . . Burnett Guilty and /or Liable in each case(s) – Citation Number 000000FM08088 at the District
Court for Baltimore City . . . and 000000DV78009 at the District Court of Maryland #10-02 for
1 Though not entirely clear from the complaint, Burnett appears to assert claims on his own behalf
and on behalf of the United States Government. 	See ECF 1 (naming “United States (U.S.)
Government Plaintiff”); see also ECF 1-1, at 1 (indicating U.S. Government Plaintiff as the basis
for jurisdiction). As a pro se plaintiff, however, Burnett is only permitted to bring claims on his
own behalf. See Loc. R. 101.1(a) (D. Md. 2025) (“Individuals who are parties in civil cases may
only represent themselves.”). Burnett cannot bring claims on behalf of the U.S. Government.
2 It is difficult to discern from the complaint exactly what entities are named as defendants in this
action, and so the docket lists only the State of Maryland and “Edward Frank” as defendants.
However, Burnett has attached to the complaint summonses for the District Court for Baltimore
City, the District Court for Carroll County, the State of Maryland, and the Maryland Attorney
General. See ECF 1-3, at 2–5. The Court will accordingly instruct the Clerk to correct the docket
to include the defendants named on Burnett’s summonses.
3 Specifically, Burnett cites to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fed. R. Civ. P. “5.1”; the “Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) 5.1”; 28 U.S.C. § 2403; 42 U.S.C. § 2002h-2; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 18 U.S.C.
§ 402; 18 U.S.C. § 401; 18 U.S.C. § 1503; 18 U.S.C. § 1505; 18 U.S.C. § 1506; 18 U.S.C. § 1512;
28 U.S.C. § 453; 18 U.S.C. § 2; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C § 245; 18 U.S.C.
1918; 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 28 U.S.C. § 2201; the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution; the Civil Rights Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the
“Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act.” ECF 1, at 1–5.
Case 1:26-cv-00475-BAH Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Carroll County.”4 	Id. at 6–7. 	As relief, Burnett requests that “Defendant(s) receive Summons
and Complaint,” that the “Maryland Attorney General files charges and prosecutes all involved
with causing . . . Burnett financial hardships,” and 	a damages 	award in the amount of
$300,000,000,000.00. Id. at 11–13.
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a state, as well as its
agencies and departments, are immune from suits in federal court absent state consent or
Congressional action. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).
“It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies
or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.” Id. (citing
Fla. Dep’t of Health v. Fla. Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147 (1981) (per curiam)). While the
State of Maryland has waived its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in its
courts, see Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-201(a), it has not waived its immunity to suit in
federal court. “A State’s constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it
may be sued, but where it may be sued.” 	Halderman, 465 U.S. at 99 (emphasis in original).
Further, “Maryland state courts . . . are arms of the State, [and] therefore, are immune from suit in
federal court.” Friends of Lubavitch v. Baltimore Cnty., Maryland, 421 F. Supp. 3d 146, 160 (D.
Md. 2019) (citing Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30, 35 (2012) (affirming
the lower court’s ruling that Maryland Court of Appeals is an entity or instrumentality of the State
4 A review of Maryland Judiciary Case Search shows that Case Number 000000FM08088 pertains
to a traffic citation from 2010, to which Burnett pled guilty on January 12, 2010. 	See State of
Maryland v. Andrew Jerome Burnett, Case No. 000000FM08088 (Dist. Ct. Balt. City October 16,
2009) 	(Maryland 	Judiciary 	Case 	Search, 	http://casesearch.courts.state.
md.us/casesearch/inquirySearch.jis 	(Under 	“Search 	By 	Case Number,” enter 	case number
“000000FM08088”; then select “Search”) (last visited Feb. 13, 2026); see also Waters v.
Randolph, Civ. No. GLR-17-2960, 2018 WL 337757, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2018) (taking judicial
notice of facts from Maryland Judiciary Case Search). The Court could not locate case number
000000DV78009 on Maryland Judiciary Case Search.
Case 1:26-cv-00475-BAH Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
for purposes of sovereign immunity)). “[T]he Attorney General for Maryland is an instrumentality
of the Maryland State government” and is likewise immune from suit. 	Tillery v. United States
Marshals Serv., Civ. No. SAG-23-00402, 2024 WL 3598117, at *8 (D. Md. July 31, 2024) (first
citing Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 6-106(a); and then citing Doyle v. Hogan, 1 F.4th 249, 256–
57 (4th Cir. 2021)). As a result, Defendants cannot be sued in this Court, and Burnett’s complaint
must be dismissed. The motion at ECF 3 is, therefore, denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is this 20th day of February, 2026, by the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 6, is GRANTED;
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgments, ECF 3, is DENIED as moot;
3. 	The Clerk is directed to remove Edward Frank as a defendant, and add the District
Court for Baltimore City, the District Court for Carroll County, and the Maryland
Attorney General as defendants on the docket;
4. 	The complaint is DISMISSED; and
5. 	The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and MAIL a copy of this memorandum
and order to Plaintiff.
_____________/s/_______________
Brendan A. Hurson
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00475-BAH Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4