Bey v. Contes et al
Filing
9
ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 2/3/17. (EJA)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Morah Ella Bey,
No. CV-16-3611-PHX-DKD
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Connie Contes, et al.,
ORDER
13
Defendants.
14
15
The Court previously addressed this case in an Order dated November 3, 2016
16
(Doc. 5). That Order gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to
17
address two apparent deficiencies in the original complaint. First, there appeared to be no
18
basis for federal court jurisdiction. Second, the complaint was undecipherable in major
19
part. In other words, the Court found it difficult to understand what the Plaintiff was
20
trying to say.
21
On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which asserts as
22
the alleged basis for jurisdiction the following: “This court has jurisdiction over this
23
matter pursuant to I herby hold the oath of[ccc] to uphold the constitution of this mateer
24
Jd4190, court has no jurisdiction over [sb ,zb] [meb, bs] judge [ccc]and [dcs] has been
25
unconstitutional, perjury under oath violation of acts Clerks masquerading as a judge , the
26
temporary custody notice signed under threat dress and Corrosion , child trafficking,no
27
due process §§ Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241: Conspiracy Against.” [quoted as in the
28
original]
1
The Court again finds that the Amended Complaint does not contain a plain
2
statement demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff may be complaining
3
that a state court judge and a state agency have taken custody of her children but the
4
Amended Complaint does not demonstrate that this federal Court has jurisdiction over
5
this matter. Plaintiff’s citation to 18 U.S.C. § 241 does not provide this Court with
6
jurisdiction as this statute includes no private right of action. In other words, this is a
7
criminal statute and only the United States Department of Justice may bring a legal action
8
based on this statute. Mousseaux v. U.S. Com’r. of Indian Affairs, 806 F.Supp. 1433
9
(D.S.D. 1992).
10
Moreover, in our federal system of government, respect between the state and
11
federal courts requires that federal courts often abstain from interfering with matters that
12
are properly before the state courts. Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S.
13
496 (1941). As set forth in the previous Order, it may well be that Plaintiff may contest
14
the state court action by an appeal to a higher court within the Arizona state court system.
15
Thus, because Plaintiff did not comply with the previous Order that Plaintiff
16
provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief”,
17
the Court will take the action that it warned Plaintiff about and dismiss this case without
18
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and pursuant to the consent of all
19
parties who are presently before the Court to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28
20
U.S.C. § 636(c) (Doc. 8).
21
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice.
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
23
24
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2).
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2017.
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?