Davis-Bey v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER granting applicatin to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing complaint. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY DEANDRE DAVIS-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-12167

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT
On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed an incoherent forty-three page “Affidavit/Legal
Notice of Removal and Counterclaim Memorandum of Law,” in which he makes “the
Ultimate Claim to legal freedom” as a “Pre-Columbian Indigenous Moorish-American.”
(Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID 2.) At various points in his filing, he seems to seek removal of an
unidentified state court action against him, redress for violations of his constitutional
rights, disqualification of all courts, judges, and lawyers from his case, copyright claims,
and perhaps even a claim under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, none of his
allegations or requests for relief are presented in a coherent or understandable manner.
Contemporaneous to filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. The court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),1 and then dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which the court can grant relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Complaints filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to the
screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863,
866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss
complaints that are frivolous, that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it
lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must show, construing the complaint
in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true,
Evans-Marshall v. Board of Educ., 428 F.3d 223, 228 (6th Cir. 2005), “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

1

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that he earns
$710 a month, and has $710 in his bank account. He has no other assets and is
responsible for one dependent, Deion Davis-Bey. Accordingly, the court will grant
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Thus, “a pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff’s complaint must
cross “the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants. To
start with, it is unclear what Plaintiff is claiming. He begins by asserting that he is an
independent sovereign entity, and thus not subject to the laws of Michigan or the United
States. The gravamen of his complaint seems to be that on August 5, 2013, he was
pulled over by two police officers, whom he characterizes as “privateers.” The officers
ordered him to place his hands outside of the vehicle, and then tazed him. (Dkt. # 1,
Pg. ID 19.) He further states that he was issued three “local ordinance violations,” was
processed into a “foreign enclave and kidnaped” (presumably, he means a police
station), and held for a “ransom of $1,500,” which he alternately characterizes as
“booty.” (Id. at Pg. ID 19, 28.) No additional detail is provided.
Instead, Plaintiff embarks on a lengthy (and mostly incomprehensible) diatribe
against the “Corporation of the United States,” the Michigan State Bar, the United
States Flag, the Wayne County 36th District Court, and President Barack Obama.
Plaintiff’s allegations are “fantastic or delusional.” Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923
(6th Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff does not have even an arguable claim to relief, the

court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #
2) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 17, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, June 17, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-12167.DAVISBEY.IFPGrantSummaryDismissal.jac.wpd