Valentine-Dey v. District Court of Charles County, Maryland
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/30/2013. (c/m 5/30/2013 ns)(nss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MANSUR AKIL JELANI VALENTINE-DEY *
A/K/A TIMOTHY MAURICE VALENTINE
Petitioner,
*
v.
*
DISTRICT COURT FOR CHARLES
COUNTY, MARYLAND
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-13-1524
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 23, 2013, Mansur Akil Jelani Valentine-Dey (“Valentine-Dey”), also known as
Timothy Maurice Valentine, filed a Petition for writ of mandamus. (ECF No. 1). Affording the
self-represented Petition a generous construction, it appears that Valentine-Dey seeks court order to
compel a state court judge to “honor” the various writs he has filed in a “Peace Order” case
proceeding in the District Court for Charles County, Maryland and to “void and “dismiss” the
judgment entered in that case. (Id. at 2). Valentine-Dey also appears to challenge the ruling of a
state court judge, claiming that his due process rights were violated, when a judge improperly
construed his filings as motions, refused to honor his writs, and issued a “fraudulent” order.
(Id.).
He contends that as a Moorish American National, who has altered his name without court
application or authorization, the State cannot issue him identification and he is not subject to the
“foreign colorable United States corporation, their private foreign for profit corporation(s) have no
lawful jurisdiction to hear, present, or to pass judgment in any matter concerning my affairs under a
quasi-criminal, non-sanctioned tribunal of foreign private-law process.” (Id. at 7).
The petition was not accompanied by the required civil fling fee or indigency motion.
Valentine-Dey shall not, however, be required to cure this deficiency. Mandamus relief is a remedy
only used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402
(1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Moreover, a federal court does not have
jurisdiction over state entities or employees in an action for writ of mandamus. See Gurley v.
Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969); see also AT & T Wireless
PCS v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307, 312 n. 3 (4th Cir. 1999).
Further, the legal assertions raised in the document amount to nonsensical gibberish designed
to thwart enforcement of court order. Reduced to its essence, Valentine-Dey's claim is that he is a
“Moorish American” and that, based on his ancestry, the State of Maryland does not have
jurisdiction to impose peace order restrictions on him.
1
There is no basis in the law for such a
claim. The fact that a group claiming to be “Moorish Americans” has written documents that might
support this idea does not establish a valid claim. Moreover, Valentine-Dey is not the first person to
raise this or similar claims based on an alleged status as a “Moorish American.” These claims have
been rejected. See Pitt–Bey v. District of Columbia, 942 A .2d 1132, 1136 (D. C. 2008); Fergusonel v. Virginia, 2011 WL 3652327 (E.D. Va. 2011); Albert Fitzgerald Brockman–El v. N.C. Dep’t. of
Corr., Civil Action No. WO-09-633 (M.D. N.C. 2009), appeal dismissed for lack of a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, 373 Fed. Appx. 332 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. –
–––, 131 S. Ct. 168 (2010). The court is aware of no instance where the United States has
1
Valentine-Dey’s exhibit shows that on May 7, 2013, a final peace order was issued against
him in the District Court of Maryland for Charles County in Riddick v. Valentine, Case No.
0402SP004812013. (ECF No. 1 at Ex. 13).
2
recognized the so-called “Moorish/Muurish Nation” as a sovereign. Because it plainly appears that
Valentine-Dey is not entitled to any relief in this court, the Petition shall be dismissed.
A separate Order shall follow reflecting the ruling set out herein.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
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?