Bey v. St. Louis County Police Department

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Nycere Bey motion is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/31/12. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NYCERE BEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPT., )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 4:12-CV-1461 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Nycere Bey for leave to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the motion, the
Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee. As
a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and will dismiss
it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), because it is legally frivolous.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint
filed in forma pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or
fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 31 (1992). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing
the named defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right.
Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D.N.C. 1987), aff’d 826 F.2d 1059
(4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead “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).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for violations of his civil rights against defendant
St. Louis County Police Department. Plaintiff alleges that he is a Moor and that he
is, therefore, immune from state and federal law.
Plaintiff specifically claims that “St. Louis County Police ignored the fact that
I told them I am now a sovereign secure party for the Curtis Lamar Flanagan
Corporation which means I have a lien on my old name and my social security
number. Knowing this they still wrote me tickets for court and they even participated
in kidnapping me, violated my Sixth Amendment rights is what they did and falsely
imprisonment me for four days.” Other than claiming immunity from federal law due

-2-

to his Moorish beliefs, plaintiff has not articulated how defendant’s behavior
allegedly violated his civil rights.
Discussion
The essential elements of a constitutional claim under § 1983 are (1) that the
defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that the alleged wrongful conduct
deprived the plaintiff of a constitutionally protected federal right. Schmidt v. City of
Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 571 (8th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has not alleged a specific
violation of his constitutionally protected federal right. His conclusory statements to
the contrary do not provide a basis for liability under § 1983.
Moreover, fatal to plaintiff’s assertion of immunity to federal and state laws is
the non-recognition of the Moorish Nation as a sovereign state by the United States.
See Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 WL 1812615 *6 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007); Osiris v.
Brown, 2004 WL 2044904 *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2005); Khattab El v. United States
Justice Dept., 1988 WL 5117 *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 1988).
unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself.

Plaintiff cannot

See United States v.

Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s purported status as a
Moorish-American citizen does not enable him to violate state or federal laws without
consequence. As a result, plaintiff’s allegations are legally frivolous and subject to
dismissal.
-3-

Last, plaintiff’s claims are legally frivolous because the St. Louis County
Police Department is not a suable entity. See Ketchum v. City of West Memphis,
Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 81 (8th Cir. 1992) (departments or subdivisions of local
government are not juridical entities suable as such).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-