Isma El v. Fayette County Detention Center et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Clerk shall modify the docket to identify the Pla as "Kenneth Mobley, aka Amir Kenneth Mobley Isma El." (2) Mobley's 1 Notice of Removal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and this action is REMA NDED to the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Kentucky. (3) Clerk shall FORWARD a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Fayette County, Kentucky, referencing Case No. #14-F-756. (4) Circuit Court may proceed with this action without further impediment. (5) Mobley's 3 Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on May 22, 2014. (AWD) cc: Pla via US Mail to FCDC,certified copy to Fayette Circuit Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
KENNETH MOBLEY,
aka AMIR KENNETH MOBLEY ISMA EL,
Plaintiff,
V.
FAYETTE COUNTY. DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
***
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 5: 14-197-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
***
***
Kenneth Mobley1 is an inmate at the Fayette County Detention
Center in Lexington, Kentucky.
filed
a
“Notice
of
Removal”
Proceeding pro se, Mobley has
[R.
1];
a
“Notice
of
Unlawful
Action” [R. 2]; and a “Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction.” [R. 3]
1
Mobley identifies himself as Amir Kenneth Mobley Isma El. [R.
1]
However, the Account Activity Ledger he has provided
indicates that his legal name is Kenneth Mobley [R. 1-2, p. 5],
a name he has used in prior litigation before this Court.
Moche’ Isma El v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 5:12-CV-207-WOB
(E.D. Ky. 2012); Mobley v. Kentucky District Court, No. 5:13443-KSF (E.D. Ky. 2013). A plaintiff must litigate a case filed
in federal court using his or her legal name.
The Court will
therefore direct the Clerk of the Court to modify the docket to
identify Kenneth Mobley as the plaintiff’s legal name, with Amir
Kenneth Mobley Isma El included as an additional designation.
Mobley has not paid the $400.00 in filing and administrative
fees, nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
In
his
“Notice
of
Removal,”
Mobley
asserts
that
jurisdiction over this action is vested with the United States
Supreme Court, but he also has invoked this Court’s removal
jurisdiction
under
28
U.S.C.
§
1441,
apparently
seeking
remove “Case #14-F-756” from the Fayette Circuit Court.
p.
1]
Mobley
separately
asserts
a
“Cause
of
to
[R. 1,
Action,”
the
subject matter of which appears to be the December 3, 2013,
search of his apartment and his subsequent arrest by officers,
which he contends was done without a proper warrant.
also
complains
regarding
events
occurring
Mobley
during
his
confinement, including a guard’s termination of a phone call
with his attorney and his subsequent confinement in segregation.
Id. at 2.
He further contends that the judges presiding over
his criminal proceedings lack jurisdiction over him because, as
a foreign sovereign, he is not subject to the laws of Kentucky
or of the United States.
Mobley’s
officials
“Notice
violated
of
the
Id. at 3-5; R. 1-1, pp. 1-2.
Unlawful
Action”
asserts
Foreign
Sovereign
that
state
Immunities
Act,
codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 16021611
(“FSIA”)
notwithstanding
by
referring
to
him
his
asserted
right
to
as
“Kenneth
choose
his
Mobley”
own
name.
Mobley contends that state case #14-F-756 is therefore removable
to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d).
[R. 2]
Finally,
in his “Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction,” Mobley contends that
he cannot be prosecuted under or made subject to the laws of the
United States or any of the several States because they do not
apply to him.
[R. 3, pp. 1-2]
This action is the latest effort by Mobley to interfere
with
past
against
and
him
ongoing
by
criminal
Kentucky
District
Court,
February
21,
No.
2014,
and
civil
officials.
5:13-443-KSF
Order
of
See
(E.D.
actions
Mobley
Ky.
instituted
v.
Kentucky
2013)
Dismissal].
As
[R.
17,
with
its
predecessor, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of
jurisdiction and remand it to the Fayette Circuit Court.
Mobley
seeks
to
pursuant to § 1441(d).
remove
the
state
court
criminal
action
That section provides:
Any civil action brought in a State court against a
foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this
title may be removed by the foreign state to the
district court of the United States for the district
and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(d).
frivolous.
Case
No.
Mobley’s invocation of this provision is
#14-F-756
pending in Fayette Circuit Court.
permits
actions.
the
removal
Cf.
of
Thompson
state
v.
is
a
felony
criminal
action
By its terms, § 1441(d) only
civil
Scutt,
No.
actions,
not
1:11-cv-573,
criminal
2011
WL
2745934,
at
*4-5
fundamentally,
actions
against
§ 1603(a).
that
a
(W.D.
section
“foreign
Mich.
only
July
13,
permits
state”
as
2011).
removal
defined
in
More
of
28
civil
U.S.C.
Only a “foreign state” possesses standing to seek
removal under this provision, something Mobley plainly is not.
See United States v. Curtiss–Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304,
318–19 (1936).
Because Mobley has failed to establish any basis for this
Court’s jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss this matter and
remand
it
to
the
Fayette
Circuit
Court
for
all
further
proceedings.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
The Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket to
identify the plaintiff as “Kenneth Mobley, a/k/a Amir Kenneth
Mobley Isma El.”
2.
Mobley’s Notice of Removal [R. 1] is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction, and this action is REMANDED to the Circuit
Court of Fayette County, Kentucky.
3.
The Clerk of Court shall FORWARD a certified copy of
this Order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Fayette County,
Kentucky, referencing Case No. #14-F-756.
4.
The Circuit Court may proceed with this action without
further impediment.
5.
Mobley’s “Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction” is DENIED.
This the 22nd day of May, 2014.
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?