BEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.
Filing
4
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 12/22/2011. (nz, )n.m.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAVANNA S. BEY, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Respondents.
:
: Civil Action No. 11-5505 (JBS)
:
:
: OPINION
:
:
:
:
APPEARANCES:
RAVANNA S. BEY, JR., Petitioner pro se
101914
BURLINGTON CNTY DET CNTR
54 GRANT STREET
MT. HOLLY, NJ 08060
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the application of
Petitioner Ravanna S. Bey, Jr. for a writ of mandamus.
Petitioner submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis
with an affidavit of indigency and his prison account statement,
as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
It appears that
Petitioner qualifies for indigent status.
For the reasons set
forth below, however, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Ravanna S. Bey, Jr. (“Petitioner”) brings this
petition for a writ of mandamus against the State of New Jersey
and Atlantic County.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the
Burlington County Detention Center.
Though the petition contains
a substantial amount of information related to Petitioner’s
citizenship in the Moorish American National Republic Government,
it is not clear what relief Petitioner is seeking from this
Court.
Petitioner describes a criminal matter he has pending in
state court and it appears that his petition relates to that
matter, but, it is not clear what action he wants the named
Respondents to take.
Specifically, in his “Statement of Facts”
section, Petitioner states that:
On July 5, 2011, Petitioner was transported from Camden
County Correctional Facility to Atlantic County Justice
Facility for Egg Harbor Twp. Police Dept. Detective
Stompf #15116 who filed the criminal complaint on
3/10/11...The Respondents referred this matter to New
Jersey Superior Court-Criminal Division before Judge
Kyran Connor and Prosecutor Lauren Hiek on 7-15-11,
Arraignment. Jurisdiction was challenged on the record
and burden of proo if on the government beyond a
reasonable doubt...[Petitioner filed] motions
challenging jurisdiction, motions to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction, powers prohibited to the States,
supremacy clause, supplemental emancipation...
Petitioners motions were denied without burden of proof
of jurisdiction by the Respondents or a court order.
Respondents began to allow sheriffs to intimidate and
physically assault Petitioner by repeatedly slamming
palms into spinal area while shackled and cuffed.
(Pet. at 4.)
In his amended petition, Petitioner states the following
additional facts:
Respondents denied Petitioner the right to reasonable
bail, knowing that...Petitioner’s bail should have been
at most according to the bail schedule 2 -- 2000.00
2
w/10% $200,000... Petitioner never was charged
(booked), fingerprinted, photographed, read Miranda
rights or arrested or arraigned by Cinnaminson Police
or municipality...These Respondents Judge Richard E.
Andronici and Jacqueline L. Gleason (CMCA) denied
Petitioner of the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; and denied the right to be
confronted with the witnesses against Petitioner. (No
complaint, no victim, no arrest.)
(Am. Pet. at 5.)
Also in the amended petition, under “Relief Sought”,
Petitioner states the following:
Petitioners right to require the performance from
Respondents and performance of the act is clear, and it
is apparent that no valid excuse for nonperformance can
be given, Petitioners petition for writ of mandamus
should be granted.
(Am. Pet. at 8.)
II. ANALYSIS
Petitioner seeks relief by a petition for a writ of
mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
The Mandamus Act vests
the district court with original jurisdiction over any action in
the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or agency of the
United States to perform a duty owed to a plaintiff.
U.S.C. § 1361.
See 28
It is well-established that a writ of mandamus is
an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in extraordinary
cases.
See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984); United
States v. Olds, 426 F.2d 562, 565 (3d Cir. 1970).
Mandamus
relief is appropriate “only when the plaintiff’s claim is clear
and certain and the duty of the officer is ministerial and so
3
plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt.”
Giddings v.
Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108 (5th Cir. 1992).
The Supreme Court has set forth conditions to be established
before mandamus relief is granted: (1) that plaintiff has a clear
right to have his application adjudicated; (2) that defendants
owe a nondiscretionary duty to rule on the application; and (3)
that plaintiff has no other adequate remedy.
See Allied Chemical
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); Kerr v. United
States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)(party seeking
issuance of the writ must “have no other adequate means to attain
the relief he desires” and must show that his “right to issuance
of the writ is clear and indisputable”); United States v. Ferri,
686 F.2d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 1982).
Even where this burden is met,
the court has discretion to deny the writ, “even when technical
grounds for mandamus are satisfied.”
Coombs v. Staff Attorneys,
168 F. Supp.2d 432, 434-35 (E.D. Pa. 2001)(citation omitted).
Here, the Court finds no basis for mandamus relief.
First,
it is not clear to the Court what action the Petitioner is
requesting from the state officials.
Second, Petitioner has not
shown that his right to the writ is clear and undisputable.
Third, the named respondents are not federal officers that owe a
non-discretionary duty to petitioner.
Finally, Petitioner has
not demonstrated that he has no other remedy.
Therefore,
Petitioner has failed to show any extraordinary factors that
4
would warrant resort to a petition for a writ of mandamus.
Most
significantly, however, Petitioner’s mandamus action is asserted
against state officials, not federal officers, and therefore, the
mandamus action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
III.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the petition for a writ of
mandamus will be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
No fees or costs of suit will be assessed. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
December 22, 2011
Dated
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
5
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?