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)

Download PDF
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?