Hamilton v. Hogan

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Antoine Levelle Hamilton; motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or causeprocess to issue upon the complaint because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and the complaint is legally frivolous. An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/12/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTOINE LEVELLE HAMILTON
a/k/a RA SUN BEY,
Petitioner,
v.
ELIZABETH BYRNE HOGAN
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV823 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of petitioner, Antoine Hamilton,
a/k/a Ra Sun 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 statement
provided by petitioner, the Court finds that petitioner is financially unable to pay any
portion of the filing fee. As a result, petitioner 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedural 12(h)(3) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and
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 respondent 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 respondents 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
Petitioner brings this action seeking a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651, alleging violations of his civil and “indigenous” rights. Petitioner claims that
he is a Moor and that he should be allowed to abide by “The Treaty of Peace and
Friendship of 1836 A.D. Between Morocco and the United States.” He seeks a writ of
mandamus against Judge Elizabeth Byrne Hogan, of St. Louis City Court, as a result
of her alleged failure to accept a document entitled “Averment of Jurisdiction - Quo
Warranto” that petitioner attempted to file in his criminal proceeding in St. Louis City
Court on April 4, 2013. See State v. Hamilton, Case No. 1022-CR06244.1 Petitioner
1

According to Missouri Case.net, in State v. Hamilton, Case No. 1022-CR06244,
petitioner was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle on a Canceled/Revoked
-2-

claims that the “Averment of Jurisdiction-Quo Warranto” would have requested “a
copy of the Superior Court GA 15 certified delegation of Authority Order Confirmed
by Congress to make a physical inspection and verify and witness same.” Petitioner
claims that on April 25, 2013 respondent failed to “abut or respond to” his motion for
default judgment in his criminal case.
Petitioner claims that “[i]n so refusing to honor the Averment of Jurisdiction Quo Warranto and denial of the Notice of Default Judgment Elizabeth Byrne Hogan
has violated her oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution.” Petitioner
therefore seeks an order from this Court compelling respondent to honor the default
judgment and dismiss and expunge the criminal case against him.
Discussion
Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is legally frivolous. This Court
is authorized to issue writs of mandamus or other extraordinary writs only in aid of its
jurisdiction, either existing or potential. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a); Middlebrooks v.
Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Circuit Court, Union County, 323 F.2d 485, 486 (8th
Cir.1963). The actions of the named respondent in the instant case are not within the
jurisdiction of this Court. See Middlebrooks, 323 F.2d at 486; Veneri v. Circuit Court
of Gasconade Co., 528 F.Supp. 496, 498 (E.D.Mo.1981)(federal courts have no

Drivers’ License in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 302.321.
-3-

superintending control over, and are without authority to issue writ of mandamus to
direct, state court or its judicial officers in performing duties).
As a consequence, this action shall be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’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 this Court lacks jurisdiction over this
matter and the complaint is legally frivolous.
An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-