Filing 4

MEMORANDUM: For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). cc: Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: RASHEED MALIK MOOREESE EL

No. 3:21-mc-3-BJB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mooreese El filed a three-page document titled “OFFICIAL NATIVE SOVEREIGN
NATION IDENTIFICATION:MANDATORY ACCEPTANCE: USC” and paid the filing fee
for filing a miscellaneous action in this Court. The document purports to be a notice to the
“State of Kentucky, Jefferson County Probate Court, the Jefferson County Prosecutor; all
federal, state, county, local, municipal and corporate law enforcement [and] bail agencies” that
they are “PRECLUDED FROM ALL ACTIONS against Royal Consular Rasheed Mooreese
Malik El I and ALL Members of his/her Noble Religious Society M.S.T. of A. Grand Major
Temple II/Aulcoarah Private Society of Mu’urs & Moors en Al Morocco/Al
Marikanos/Americase Royal Temple #1.” DN 1 at 1. The document cites the “United States
Supreme Court case ruling 13-01313-FCH WASH DC in favor of Cherokee Freedman
Descendants (2017). United States Eastern District of Michigan Federal Case 3-20-mc-500006,
and Michigan Department of State USS Lien #.” Id. (excessive capitalization removed).
Elsewhere, this document states that federal case 3:20-mc-5006 “estops and precludes any and
all proceedings, actions, investigations, taxations, searches, seizures, detentions, warrants, et al,
pertaining to Aff:Divine Minister Rasha Malik Mooreese EL I or his property[.]” Id. (same).
Mooreese El’s filing asks for no relief from the Court, but instead purports to preclude
proceedings, investigations, taxation, detentions, warrants, and other legal actions from being
brought against him. This purported “notice” has no legal significance; Mooreese El cannot bind
corporations, bail agencies, or federal, state, and local officials with respect to his fictitious

notions and unintelligible procedural documents, which have the hallmarks of being pseudo-legal
documents created by the Moorish sovereign-citizen movement. “So-called sovereign citizens
believe that they are not subject to government authority and employ various tactics in an
attempt to, among other things, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal
proceedings.” Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 282 (2011). The sovereign-citizen
movement espouses the belief “that as a result of eighteenth-century treaties the United States
has no jurisdiction over its Moorish inhabitants.” Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 559–61 (7th Cir.
2017).
Courts have repeatedly rejected, as frivolous, arguments based on the theory of sovereign
citizenship. See, e.g., United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Courts
have been confronted repeatedly by [sovereign citizens’] attempts to delay judicial proceedings
and have summarily rejected their legal theories as frivolous.”); United States v. Benabe, 654
F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly rejected [the defendants’] theories of
individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.”); McCormack v. Hollenbach,
No. 3:18-CV-P617-RGJ, 2019 WL 360522, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2019) (“Sovereign citizen
arguments are recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). “Claims based on ‘sovereign citizen’ theories may be dismissed without
‘extended argument’ as patently frivolous.” Adkins v. Kentucky, No. 3:18-MC-26, 2018 WL
6528462, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018) (quoting United States v. Ward, No. 98-30191, 1999
WL 369812, at *2 (9th Cir. May 13, 1999)).
Under Apple v. Glenn, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate when the allegations “are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to

2

discussion.” 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Because the legal theories espoused in this
action are frivolous, the Court, by separate Order, will dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.
Date:

October 6, 2021

cc:
Mooreese El, pro se
B213.009

3