Ahmed Ar Khalifa v. Ramos
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 3/27/2013: For the reasons stated, Al-Khalifa's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 4 is denied and Al-Khalifa's Complaint is dismissed. Al-Khalifa's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 is therefore denied as moot. (For further details see order) Mailed notice(tlp, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Virginia M. Kendall
13 C 582
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
OLUWASHINA KAZEEM AHMED Ar KHALIFA vs. F. RAMOS
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
For the reasons stated, Al-Khalifa’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis  is denied and Al-Khalifa’s
Complaint is dismissed . Al-Khalifa’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel  is therefore denied as moot.
Status set for 4/29/2013 is stricken. Civil Case Terminated.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
*Mail AO 450 form.
Plaintiff Oluwashina Kazeem Ahmed Al-Khalifa (“Al-Khalifa”) brings this cause of action against F.
Ramos (“Ramos”), an officer employed by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
(“INS”), alleging that his due process rights were violated when he was deported from the United States in
2002. For the reasons stated herein, Al-Khalifa’s Motions are denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Al-Khalifa to proceed in forma pauperis if
he is unable to pay the mandated court fees. Al-Khalifa need not be penniless to proceed in forma pauperis
under § 1915(a)(1). See Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Instead, he is eligible to proceed
in forma pauperis if payment of the filing fee will prevent him from providing for life’s necessities. See Id.
According to his financial affidavit, Al-Khalifa is not currently employed and has not been employed since
July of 2006. Al-Khalifa’s spouse is currently employed in North Carolina, but Al-Khalifa is unaware of the
amount of her monthly salary or wages. Al-Khalifa does not own real estate or any additional items of
personal property worth over $1,000, nor does he have more than $200 in cash in a checking or savings
account. Zainab O. Ahmed does not live with Al-Khalifa but relies on him for support. Al-Khalifa does not
state his relationship to Ahmed. Based on these facts, Al-Khalifa’s financial affidavit sets forth his inability
to pay the mandated court fees.
The Court, however, must look beyond Al-Khalifa’s financial status. Section 1915 requires the Court
to review an action of a plaintiff who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the action if it is
frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if the plaintiff seeks
damages from a defendant immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See also Lindell
v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109 (7th Cir. 2003).
W h e n
13C582 OLUWASHINA KAZEEM AHMED Ar KHALIFA vs. F. RAMOS
Page 1 of 3
evaluating whether a plaintiff has stated a claim in the context of an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the court applies the same standard as that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g.,
Allen v. JP Morgan Chase, 2010 WL 1325321 at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (citing Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d
568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000)). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court treats all well-pleaded
allegations as true and draws all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. In re marchFIRST Inc., 589
F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2009). To properly state a valid claim, the complaint must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See also Tamayo
v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). “Detailed factual allegations” are not required, but the
plaintiff must allege facts that, when “accepted as true ... ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007)). To determine whether a complaint meets this standard the “reviewing court [must] draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. If the factual allegations are well-pleaded,
the Court assumes their veracity and then turns to determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief. See Id. A claim has facial plausibility when its factual content allows the Court to draw
a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Id. at 678. However,
“courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory
legal statements.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).
Al-Khalifa, also known as Mark Ayilla, is a Nigerian citizen who was arrested “after he obtained a
fraudulent birth certificate and social security card from a known counterfeiter cooperating in a government
sting operation. After his arrest, Ayilla falsely told agents interviewing him that he was a United States
citizen, Ayilla subsequently waived indictment and pleaded guilty to producing a false identification
document in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1) and falsely representing himself as a United States citizen in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911.” United States v. Ayilla, 50 Fed. App’x. 309, at *1 (7th Cir. 2002). After
pleading guilty, Al-Khalifa completed his term of imprisonment of five months and was subsequently
deported to Nigeria. Now, over ten years after his deportation, Al-Khalifa alleges his constitutional rights
Over the past three months, Al-Khalifa has demonstrated a pattern of filing frivolous suits with this
Court. Since December 21, 2012, Al-Khalifa has filed nine separate suits (counting this one) in this District
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis and with appointed counsel. Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Bromwich, No. 13cv-1386 (Darrah, J.) (filed 2/20/13); Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Moro, No. 13-cv-1381 (Marovich, J.) (filed
2/20/13); Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Ecowas Court of Justices, No. 13-cv-1380 (Durkin, J.) (filed 2/20/13);
Kazeem et al v. Ashcroft, No. 13-cv-1377 (Gottschall, J.) (filed 2/20/13); Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Court of
Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 13-cv-586 (St. Eve, J.) (filed 1/24/13); Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Perryman, No.
13-cv-583 (Darrah, J.) (filed 1/24/13); Ahmed-Al-Khalifa v. Holder, No. 12-cv-10339 (Leinenweber, J.)
(filed 12/26/12); Al-Khalifa v. Sunnyade, No. 12-cv-10288 (Kendall, J.) (filed 12/21/12). Thus within just a
few months, seven different United States District Court judges in this District have been tasked with
attempting to decipher Al-Khalifa’s lengthy and generally incomprehensible allegations to determine
whether, even under a most charitable construction, his Complaints state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Despite the generous reading Complaints are afforded in cases where a plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, not one of Al-Khalifa’s claims has made it past the pleading stage. See Ecowas, No. 13-cv-1380
(dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 13-cv-586
(dismissed for failure to state a claim against a cognizable defendant); Perryman, No. 13-cv-583 (dismissed
for failure to state a claim due to statute of limitations); Sunnyade, No. 12-cv-10288 (dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction). Al-Khalifa’s remaining applications have not yet been ruled upon. Al-Khalifa
also filed a series of petitions for writs of habeas corpus shortly after his deportation. See Ahmed v.
Ashcroft, No. 02-cv-2022; United States v. Ahmed, No. 02-cv-2518; Ahmed v. Ashcroft, No. 02-cv-2713;
13C582 OLUWASHINA KAZEEM AHMED Ar KHALIFA vs. F. RAMOS
Page 2 of 3
Ahmed v. Perryman, No. 02-cv-2768. These cases were dismissed upon the Court’s notification that AlKhalifa had been deported, in 2002, to Nigeria.
The Complaint in the instant case is virtually identical to Al-Khalifa’s Complaint in Perryman, No.
13-cv-583. In that case, Al-Khalifa sought to sue Brian Perryman, an officer with the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was
deported from the United States without proper due process. See id. The court in that case dismissed AlKhalifa’s Complaint, finding that “[n]othing in Plaintiff’s Complaint against Perryman establishes his right to
relief above a speculative level.” Id. The court found that even if assuming Al-Khalifa could assert a claim,
relief under § 1983 is barred by the statute of limitations governing Section 1983, which is two years in
Illinois. See id. (citing Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 2001).
Al-Khalifa’s Complaint in this case fares no better. Al-Khalifa alleges his due process rights were
violated when he was deported from the United States without his previous case being conclusive.
According to Al-Khalifa, his custody review was pending as of the date of his deportation. Most of AlKhalifa’s Complaint is dedicated to recounting his deportation experience and does not level a single specific
allegation against Ramos, whom Al-Khalifa has chosen as the Defendant for this particular filing. The only
reference to Ramos in the substantive portion of Al-Khalifa’s Complaint is handwritten note stating “May 3,
2002, F. Ramos, DO, Fax 312-385-3401, Custody Review.” (See Dkt. No. 1, p. 10.) According to AlKhalifa, this note was written by Ramos affirming that Al-Khalifa would be given a custody review as of
May 23, 2002. Al-Khalifa’s constitutional claims against Ramos arise from his contention that he has yet to
receive any information regarding custody review from Ramos.
This allegation fails to state a claim that plausibly entitles Al-Khalifa to relief. First, as noted in
Perryman, Al-Khalifa’s Section 1983 claim is barred by the statute of limitations, which is two years for a
suit in Illinois. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (“Section 1983 provides a federal cause of
action, but in several respects … looks to the law of the State in which the cause of action arose. This is so
for the length of the statute of limitations.”); Ray v. Maher, 662 F.3d 770, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Federal
law does not set the limitatiosn period in § 1983 actions. Instead, 42 U.S.C. § 1983(a) instructs us to look to
state law. Specifically, we look to the limitations period for personal injury actions. In Illinois, that period is
two years.”) (internal citations omitted). Second, even assuming the Complaint were timely, the allegations
in the Complaint fail to demonstrate that Al-Khalifa would be entitled to relief in this case. The handwritten
note alleged to have been created by Ramos simply contains a date and a fax number. Without more, AlKhalifa’s Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts demonstrating why Al-Khalifa is entitled to relief
against Ramos. Third, it is doubtful whether this Court would be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over
the defendant since neither party nor the allegations giving rise to this case have any connection to the
Northern District of Illinois. Fourth, the Court finds this suit, like Al-Khalifa’s previous filings, frivolous,
duplicative, and a waste of valuable judicial resources. Just a month ago, another district court dismissed
near-identical allegations against a different individual. See Perryman, No. 13-cv-583.
For the reasons stated, Al-Khalifa’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied and Al-Khalifa’s
Complaint is dismissed. Al-Khalifa’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is therefore denied as moot.
13C582 OLUWASHINA KAZEEM AHMED Ar KHALIFA vs. F. RAMOS
Page 3 of 3