Mohammed Bey v. Rubio et al

Filing 4

ORDER - plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 is DENIED; and plaintiff's Motion for an Immediate Injunction 3 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. Signed on 10/7/14 by District Judge Fernando J. Ga itan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda) A copy of this order and the Clerk's Judgment (Doc. 5) were sent by regular and certified mail (article No. 7013 1710 0000 5617 7794) to Abdul Ayat Mohammed Bey, 1144 East 8th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 on 10/7/2014. (Melvin, Greg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
ABDUL AYAT MOHAMMED BEY a/k/a
RONALD B. BRITT-BEY,

)
)
)
)
)
) No. 14-CV-731-W-FJG
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
MARCUS RUBIO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 1) and Motion for Immediate Injunction (Doc. # 3).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915, this Court may authorize the commencement or
prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit
stating that they are unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. In Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,
691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982), the court noted:
There is a two step process to be followed by the district court in
considering whether a pro se plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in
forma pauperis. First, a determination of whether the plaintiff qualifies by
economic status under ' 1915(a) and, if so, to permit the complaint to be
filed. Second, a determination of whether the cause of action stated in the
complaint is, under ' 1915([e]), frivolous or malicious and, if so, to dismiss
the complaint.
In Patterson v. Kaiser, No. 4:14-CV-1255-CDP, 2014 WL 4715453 (E.D.Mo.
Sept. 22, 2014), the Court stated:
An action is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted 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). In reviewing a pro se complaint under
§1915 (e)(2)(b), the Court must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court
1

must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the
facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992).
Id. at * 1.
The Court assumes that plaintiff qualifies by economic status to be able to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, after reviewing the Complaint, the Court finds that
plaintiff has failed to state a claim and his allegations are frivolous. In his rambling fortynine page Complaint, the plaintiff names as defendants, Senators Marcus Rubio and
Ted Cruz, Neil Cavuto, Net-10 Telecommunications Carrier, and various state and
federal judges. Plaintiff appears to be alleging that the defendants conspired to steal
his identity and social security benefits and that illegal wire taps were placed on his cell
phones. For example, plaintiff alleges that defendant Marcus Rubio sponsored “the
herein racketeering civil and criminal expedition from Oklahoma State through Kansas
State to Kansas City, Missouri via wire fraud; identity theft – theft of social security
benefits-SSI Disability and theft of survivor’s benefits of plaintiff-Bey; properties theft;
vandalism of properties; mail fraud; bank fraud . . .assault on Kansas City, Missouri
streets about Bey cellphone 405-698-8237 on 12th and Grand having been stalked as
set forth herein in extortion; intimidations and bully plots regarding plaintiffaffiant/Recipient-Bey SSI disability benefits and in same scheme of thing ordered by
defendant Fox News Anchor Neil Cavuto of the Five to “Silence” Plaintiff-Bey about Bey
Survivor’s benefits; herein Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant, Neil Cavuto is . . . as
stated assigned to orchestrate identity theft and theft of social security benefits as set
forth herein and had a homeless so-called white male worker at Hope Faith Ministries to
Lie on Plaintiff-Affiant-Recipient Bey in a discrediting scheme. . . .” (Plaintiff’s
Complaint, p. 16). Plaintiff also alleges that “There are ten/10 Jews on the board of
directors of the United States Department of Treasury-Federal Reserve Bank stealing

2

everyone’s money receiving information from Charles “Chuck” Schumer, Senior Senator
from New York State and leader of the criminal element of Congress = the Gang of 8 of
which defendant Marcus Rubio is a member of the Gang of 8 and is a 2016 presidential
candidate which is unconstitutional for a Cuban communist to be president.” (Plaintiff’s
Complaint, p. 18).
As the Court stated in Abdul Ayat Mohammed-Bey v. Honorable Marco Roldan,
No. 14-CV-00472-W-DW, (W.D.Mo. June 3, 2014), in an order dismissing another case
recently filed by plaintiff in this district, “[p]ut simply, there is ‘no amount of liberal
construction [that] can create a viable claim from the jumble of nonsensical and
disjointed allegations set forth by Plaintiff[.]’” Id. at 2 (quoting Caldwell v. Snyder, 2011
WL 204879, at *2 (E.D.Ark Jan.21, 2011))1. The Court agrees and finds that plaintiff
has failed to state a claim in this case because he has not alleged facts which are
plausible on their face. Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. # 1), DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for an Immediate Injunction (Doc. # 3)
and DISMISSES plaintiff’s Complaint.

Date: October 7, 2014
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan Jr.
United States District Judge

1

The Court notes that plaintiff has had other actions dismissed for similar reasons in other jurisdictions. .
See Abdul Ayat Mohammed Bey v. Dept. of Human Services, No. 12 0087, 2012 WL 171537 (D.D.C.
Jan.20,2012)(“It is difficult not only to discern a viable claim within this Court’s jurisdiction, but also to
identify a clear statement showing plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief he seeks.”); Abdul Ayat Mohammed
Bey v. Cube Smart, No. 12-0212, 2012 WL 447680 (D.D.C. Feb.9, 2012)(“The complaint consists of
rambling statements that fail to provide any notice of a claim or the basis of federal court jurisdiction.”);
Ronald Britt-Bey v. Medical Dept. Personnel, No. 4:07CV855CDP, 2007 WL 1541878 (E.D.Mo.May 24,
2007)(“The complaint is factually frivolous in that the alleged facts are fantastical and delusional.”); Abdul
Ayat Mohammed Bey v. Elliot, No. 4:07CV1197DDN, 2007 WL 3071822 (E.D.Mo. Oct. 22, 2007)(“The
complaint is so obviously frivolous that the Court need not discuss it at length.”).

3