Brown El Bey v. Pierce et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/22/2016. (klc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MARQUIS BROWN EL-BEY,
Petitioner,

v.
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-401-GMS.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
Presently pending before the court is petitioner Marquis Brown-El-Bey's ("Brown-El-

Bey") petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (D.I. 2), and a motion for
leave to proceed informa pauperis (D.I. 1). Brown-El-Bey appears to be challenging his
convictions for possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited and carrying a concealed
weapon on the ground that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he is a
"Moorish American." (D.I. 2; D.I. 2-1)

II.

DISCUSSION
A district court judge may summarily dismiss a habeas petition "if it plainly appears from

the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief."
Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Although not entirely clear, Brown-El-Bey appears to assert that
he is immune from the laws of the United States because he is a Moorish citizen and, therefore,
his convictions should be reversed and he should be released from his incarceration in a
Delaware correctional institution. This argument has no basis in law or fact. Regardless of

Brown-El-Bey's nationality or religion, he is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which he
resides. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Court, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (authorizing summary dismissal of§ 2254 applications); see, e.g.,
Jones-Bey v. Alabama, 2014 WL 1233826, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2014)("There is no basis in

the law for such a claim" that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to prosecute and
imprison petitioner based on his ancestry as a "Moorish American."); Bey v. Bailey, 2010 WL
1531172, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2010)("the suggestion that Petitioner is entitled to ignore the
laws of the State ofNew York by claiming membership in the Moorish-Amedcan nation is
without merit and cannot be the basis for habeas relief."); Osiris v. Brown, 2005 WL 2044904, at
*2-*3 (D. N.J. Aug. 24, 2005); see also Byrd v. Blackman, 2006 WL 2924446, at * 1 n.1 (E.D.
Pa. Oct. 5, 2006)(explaining the background of the Moorish beliefs). Although Brown-El-Bey
attempts to disguise his argument by alleging a violation of the ex post facto clause, his challenge
to his convictions is premised entirely on his status as a "Moorish American." Therefore, the
court will summarily dismiss the instant petition because Brown-El-Bey has failed to assert a
basis for federal habeas relief. In tum, the court will dismiss as moot Brown-El-Bey's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauper is.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court will summarily dismiss Brown-El-Bey's petition

for federal habeas relief. The court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because
Brown-El-Bey has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470

2

(3d Cir. 1997). A separate order will be entered.

Dated:

~~

'}.. '}....

'2016

3