Reed v. Missouri Child Support Enforcement et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/5/2012. (KSM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
VINCENT E. REED,
MISSOURI CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
No. 4:12-CV-1391 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint. Under Rule 12(h)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must review a complaint when it is filed and dismiss
it if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Moreover, a complaint filed in forma pauperis must be
dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that it must be summarily dismissed.
Plaintiff brings this action against the Missouri Child Support Enforcement Program; Judge
Thea A. Sherry; Judge Lawrence J. Permuter, Jr.; Katherine Jecklin, prosecutor; and Todd A.
Mandel, attorney. Plaintiff claims that defendants have violated his rights by enforcing Missouri’s
child support laws against him. From his exhibits, the Court infers that plaintiff believes that he is
a “sovereign citizen” and not subject to the laws of Missouri because of his alleged Moorish
heritage. Plaintiff was convicted of felony non-support in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, and
he wants the Court to overrule the state court’s decision and expunge his record.
Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they lack subject matter jurisdiction
to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d
160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). “Review of state court decisions may be had only in the Supreme Court.”
Id. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims.
In addition, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, i.e., child
support. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994) (“The domestic relations exception . . .
divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance
of alimony, or child custody.”); Lannan v. Maul, 979 F.2d 627, 631 (8th Cir. 1992) (“child support
obligations [are] within the domestic relations exception domain”). For these reasons, the Court
must dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, fatal to plaintiff’s assertion of immunity is the non-recognition of the Moorish
Nation as a sovereign state by the United States. See Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 WL 1812615, at *6
(M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007); Osiris v. Brown, 2004 WL 2044904, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2005);
Khattab El v. United States Justice Dept., 1988 WL 5117, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 1988). Plaintiff
cannot unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself. See United States v. Lumumba, 741
F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s purported status as a Moorish-American citizen, therefore,
does not enable him to violate state or federal laws without consequence. Even if plaintiff is a
Moorish citizen, he would be an alien under United States law, and as an alien, he must obey the
laws of this country. See Leonard v Eley, 151 F.2d 409, 410 (10th Cir. 1945); United States v. LeeEl, 2009 WL 4508565, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 24, 2009); Osiris, 2004 WL 2044904, at *2; Khattab El,
1988 WL 5117, at *2. As a result, plaintiff’s allegations are legally frivolous as well.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of September, 2012.
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?