Amir El v. Louisiana State et al

Filing 43

ORDER & REASONS. It is ORDERED that Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards' 39 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that District Attorney Paul D. Connick, Jr.'s 35 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the State of Louisiana are DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier.(gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KING SANDI AMIR EL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No.: 16-2125

LOUISIANA STATE, ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(2)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants,
Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards 1 (“Governor Edwards”) and
District Attorney Paul D. Connick, Jr. (“Defendant Connick”). 2
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either motion. Having
considered the motions and legal memoranda, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the motions should be GRANTED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s lawsuit appears to stem from his arrest in May of
2015. On or around May 30, 2015, Plaintiff was stopped by Defendant
Officer D. Boudreaux in the front yard of his grandmother’s home.
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Boudreaux “aggressively demanded
that Plaintiff identify himself” and to produce his driver’s
license.

Plaintiff

identified
American.”

1
2

R. Doc. 39.
R. Doc. 35.

himself
Despite

refused
as

“King

to

produce

Sandi

Plaintiff’s

any

Amir

attempt

identification

El,
to

a

Moslem
resist,

but

Moorish
Officer

Boudreaux grabbed Plaintiff’s arm and led him toward his police
car. Plaintiff asserts that Officer Boudreaux handcuffed him and
again asked Plaintiff to identify himself. Plaintiff “allowed his
Clock of Destiny, Moorish Nationality Card, to be observed” by
Officer Boudreaux; other deputies then arrived at the scene. One
of the deputies who arrived on scene allegedly told Plaintiff,
“You’re not King, you are Carlton Morris.” Plaintiff instructed
the officer that his name is not Carlton Morris, but rather King
Sandi Amir El. Officer Boudreaux then told Plaintiff to get into
the police car voluntarily or he would use his TASER on him.
Thereafter, Plaintiff was transported to the Jefferson Parish
Correctional Center (“JPCC”). Plaintiff alleges that at the JPCC
he again identified himself as a Moslem Moorish American but was
mocked by Jefferson Parish deputies. While in the JPCC, Plaintiff
asserts that he was held under the false name of Carlton Clennon
Morris and identified on documents as “Negro” or “black,” which
Plaintiff also alleges is untrue.
Around June 2015, Plaintiff allegedly served an “affidavit of
objection in lieu of a motion, inclusive of affidavit in support
of objection with supporting documentary evidence” on Defendant
Connick. Later, Plaintiff spoke with the Jefferson Parish Criminal
Commissioner, Paul H. Schneider, and asked whether the Defendant
Connick received these documents, to which Commissioner Schneider
allegedly responded, “You are Carlton Morris.” Plaintiff alleges
2

that he was “invidiously coerced by [Commissioner Schneider]” into
being documented as Carlton Clennon Morris and identified as a
“Negro.” In September 2015, Plaintiff made an appearance at the
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District courtroom and proclaimed that he
was

not

a

Negro,

black,

or

a

colored

person.

Thereafter,

Commissioner Schneider allegedly stated, “You are black, and you
are a Negro, and if you say anything else I will hold you in
contempt.”

Plaintiff

told

Commissioner

Schneider

that

he

was

denying him his right to be heard and that Plaintiff did not
consent to being held “in involuntary servitude for defending [his]
honor

and

reputation.”

Commissioner

Schneider

ordered

the

courtroom officer to handcuff Plaintiff and transport him to the
JPCC. Plaintiff alleges that he was held for approximately fortyeight hours without reprieve. Plaintiff again alleges he was held
under the name Carlton Clennon Morris. Finally, in January 2016,
Plaintiff made another appearance at the Twenty-Fourth Judicial
District

courtroom.

During

proceedings

before

the

Honorable

Raymond Steib, Plaintiff asserts that he was asked to “please
remove your hat” which was a “Moorish Fez.” Further, Plaintiff
alleges Judge Steib ordered Carlton Clennon Morris to take a drug
test, but Plaintiff again alleges that he is not Carlton Clennon
Morris.

After

Plaintiff

was

ordered

to

take

the

drug

Plaintiff apparently fled and an attachment was issued.

3

test,

On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed this pro se and in forma
pauperis suit against Jefferson Parish 3 and the State of Louisiana.
(R. Doc. 1.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
complaint

and

named

the

following

individuals

as

Defendants:

Governor Edwards, Defendant Connick, D. Boudreaux, and Sherriff
Newell Norman, in their personal and official capacities. (R. Docs.
31,

32.)

different

Plaintiff’s
claims,

amended

including

complaint
numerous

includes

alleged

thirty-five

constitutional

violations, against the four Defendants listed in the amended
complaint.

Plaintiff

seeks

monetary

compensation

from

these

Defendants and a declaration that they are not permitted to refer
to him as Carlton Clennon Morris. Further, Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that Defendants are not permitted to label or document
him as Negro, black, African, or colored person. Plaintiff also
asks this Court to enjoin the criminal proceedings against him in
the

Twenty-Fourth

Judicial

District

Court

for

the

Parish

of

Jefferson, Louisiana.
On March 28, 2017, Defendant Connick filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for failing to state a
plausible claim for relief. (R. Doc. 35.) Defendant Connick also
argues that even if a claim may be divined from Plaintiff’s
filings, he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and

3

Jefferson Parish has been dismissed from this lawsuit. R. Doc. 38.

4

qualified immunity. On April 11, 2017, Governor Edwards filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and for
failing to state a plausible claim for relief. (R. Doc. 38.)
Governor

Edwards

argues

that

Plaintiff’s

complaint

lacks

any

arguable basis in law and fact and is indisputably meritless.
Further, Governor Edwards contends that even if Plaintiff has
stated a claim for relief, Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary
damages from him, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. Again,
Plaintiff has not filed a response to either motion. These motions
are now before the Court on the briefs and without oral argument.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura Pharm., Inc. v.
Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005). The allegations “must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
“Under

Rule

12(b)(6),

a

claim

may

be

dismissed

when

a

plaintiff fails to allege any set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.” Taylor v. Books A Million,
Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing McConathy v. Dr.
Pepper/Seven Up Corp., 131 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 1998)). To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
5

enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the
court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A court must accept all
well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d
228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th
Cir. 1996). The court is not, however, bound to accept as true
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at

678.

“[C]onclusory

allegations

or

legal

conclusions

masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a
motion to dismiss.” Taylor, 296 F.3d at 378.
DISCUSSION
1.

Governor Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss
To hold Governor Edwards liable, Plaintiff must establish

either that he was “personally involved in the acts causing the
deprivation

of

his

constitutional

rights

or

that

a

causal

connection exists between an act of [Governor Edwards] . . .

and

the alleged constitutional violation.” Miller v. Clement, No. 165778, 2016 WL 4530620, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2016) (quoting
Douthit v. Jones, 641 F.2d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiff’s
complaint (R. Doc. 1) and amended complaints (R. Docs. 5, 32) are
6

devoid of any facts which would suggest that Governor Edwards
should be involved in this litigation in his personal capacity.
Governor Edwards name is merely listed as a defendant in this
lawsuit, and Plaintiff seeks $175.001 [sic] dollars from him.
Governor

Edwards

may

be

held

liable

for

acts

of

his

subordinates, but only if he has instituted an unconstitutional
policy that resulted in an injury to Plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep’t
of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff has failed to
state any plausible set of facts which would entitle him to relief
against

Governor

Edwards

under

this

theory.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s claims against Governor Edwards are dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Taylor,

296

F.3d

at

378.

Further,

given

the

frivolity

of

Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff shall not be permitted leave to
file an amended complaint against Governor Edwards. See Bey v.
Sutton, No. 413-205, 2013 WL 5816427, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 29,
2013) (finding a “Moorish American’s” complaint so frivolous that
a “re-pleading option” was not warranted).
2.

Defendant Connick’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaints are similarly

light on facts as to Defendant Connick. Plaintiff alleges that he
sent Defendant Connick an “affidavit of objection in lieu of
motion, and affidavit in support, and declaration of special (and
not general) appearance inclusive of lawful notice via United
7

States Postal service.” (R. Doc. 32 at 19.) Plaintiff further
alleges that he sent Defendant Connick a motion for entry of
default in an attempt to “educate” him. Id. at 20. Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that during proceedings before Judge Steib he
was interrupted by Defendant Connick who allegedly asked Plaintiff
to remove his hat while in court. Id. at 21. Plaintiff seeks
$575.001 [sic] from Defendant Connick.
Once again, Plaintiff has failed to allege any set of facts
that would entitle him to relief against Defendant Connick. It
appears that Plaintiff is like many other “Moorish Americans” who
attempt

to

escape

the

laws

of

this

country.

See,

generally,

Johnson-Bey v. Lane, 863 F.2d 1308 (7th Cir. 1988) (explaining the
background of the “Moorish Science Temple of America”); El Ameen
Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D.N.J. 2011) (explaining the
myth of the “Moorish Movement” and other similar fictions such as
“sovereign citizens” and their motives). Despite his effort, and
even as a pro se, in forma pauperis litigant, Plaintiff must still
demonstrate facts that would entitle him to the relief requested.
Walker v. Grimes, No. 16-74, 2017 WL 663349, at *1 n.1 (M.D. La.
Feb. 17, 2017) (citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 38182 (2003)). Because Plaintiff has failed to do so, his claims
against

Defendant

Connick

must

be

dismissed

with

prejudice.

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff asks this Court to enjoin
the state criminal proceedings pending against him, this request
8

is denied. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). It appears
that there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding pending in the
Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson,
Louisiana against Plaintiff, 4 the state has an important interest
in

adjudicating

Plaintiff’s

criminal

charges,

and

any

viable

constitutional challenges Plaintiff may have may be raised in the
state proceeding. Finally, Plaintiff shall not be permitted leave
to file an amended complaint against Defendant Connick. See Bey,
2013 WL 5816427, at *1.
3.

The State of Louisiana
Finally, since Plaintiff has filed this matter in forma

pauperis the Court may, sua sponte, consider whether all or part
of Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. See
Washington v. U.S. Ct. of App. Fifth Cir., No. 8-4583, 2009 WL
482134, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)). The Fifth Circuit has noted that a “‘district court
may dismiss an [in forma pauperis] proceeding for frivolousness or
maliciousness at any time, before or after service of process,’
and

that

a

discretion’

district
in

court

determining

is

‘vested

whether

with
such

especially
a

broad

dismissal

is

warranted.” Id. (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021
(5th Cir. 1998)). In making this determination the Court has “not

4

See R. Doc. 35-4.

9

only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those
claims

whose

factual

contentions

are

clearly

baseless.” Id.

(citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Thus, a
complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or
fact.” Id. (citing Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir.
1994)). But a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous
only if the facts are clearly baseless, a category encompassing
allegations

that

are

fanciful,

fantastic,

and

delusional. Id.

(citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992)).
From the facts alleged, Plaintiff’s claims against the State
of Louisiana are clearly baseless and must be dismissed. As noted
above, Plaintiff is a “Moorish Moslem American” who is attempting
to escape the laws of this country. Further, Plaintiff’s original
complaint listed the State of Louisiana as a defendant in this
matter, but his amended complaint does not list the State of
Louisiana as a defendant. “An amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the
amended

complaint

specifically

refers

to

and

adopts

or

incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” Stewart v. City
of Houston Police Dep’t, 372 F. App’x 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Louisiana

10

have been abandoned. Further, the State of Louisiana is immune
from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant, Louisiana Governor John
Bel Edwards’ Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 39) is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s claims against Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, District Attorney Paul
D. Connick, Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 35) is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s claims against District Attorney Paul D. Connick, Jr.
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against the
State of Louisiana are DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
New Orleans, Louisiana this 12th day of May, 2017.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11