EL-BEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
3
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/13/13. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
PHAROAH DR. ADMIRAL
:
A.L.S.A. EL-BEY,
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-6040 (SRC)
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
OPINION
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
CHESLER, District Judge:
On October 10, 2013, the Clerk received from Pharoah Admiral A.L.S.A. El-Bey,
also known as Jason Amin-Bey (“Plaintiff” or “El-Bey”), a two-page handwritten
document labeled “Lawful Complaint Pursuant Exhibit A:184 F.R.D. 588” stating that
Plaintiff was seeking “immediate release” from confinement. 1 (ECF No. 1) (star-sign in
original). His suit has been designated as a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
The docket of this District shows that on August 18, 2011, the United States filed
a criminal complaint charging Plaintiff with assaulting a federal officer. See United
States v. Amin-Bey, Crim. No. 11-MJ-3184 (JBC), ECF No. 1 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 18,
On July 2, 2013, the Clerk had already received from El-Bey a substantively similar
one-page handwritten document labeled “Complaint” that gave rise to El-Bey v. United
States of America, Civ. No. 13-4161 (SRC) (D.N.J. filed July 02, 2013).
1
1
2011). 2 After the United States arrested Plaintiff for said act, the Magistrate Judge found
him “not presently competent to stand trial” and committed him for temporary treatment,
followed by hospitalization, to determine whether he was suffering from a mental disease
that could pose a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiff or another person, or property. See
id., ECF Nos. 13 and 23. Correspondingly, Plaintiff was briefly confined at a medical
center in Massachusetts until the United States District of Massachusetts directed his
release into criminal custody for the purposes of conducting the aforesaid criminal
prosecution. See id., ECF No. 30.
The complaint at bar, which sounds in civil rights, appears to challenge that
ongoing criminal confinement. However, inmates seeking release must assert such
claims in a properly filed habeas corpus petition—not a civil rights action. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1975); Tedford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 748 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 920 (1993); accord Rohn v. Horton, USCA No. No. 12-2801, 2013 U.S.
App. LEXIS 236, at *5 (3d Cir. Jan. 2, 2013) (citing Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,
540 (3d Cir. 2002), for the observation that habeas review is the appropriate remedy
when the deprivation of rights is such that it necessarily “affects the fact or length of
detention”). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to raise challenges to his
confinement, these challenges will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing of
an appropriate habeas petition accompanied by $5.00 filing fee or his in forma pauperis
application. 3
Specifically, that complaint asserted that Plaintiff was escorted the Federal
Courthouse for being disruptive in its library and, during the process “kicked the Deputy
United States Marshal in the shin.” Amin-Bey, Crim. No. 11-MJ-3184 (JBC), ECF No. 1.
2
No statement is this Opinion or the Order filed herewith shall be construed as implicitly
expressing this Court’s position as to the procedural or substantive validity or invalidity
3
2
Alternatively, in the event Plaintiff wishes to proceed with litigation of his civil
rights in the instant matter, he is obligated to pay the filing fee in advance, see Local
Civil Rule 54.3; Hairston v. Gronolsky, USCA No. 08-3995, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS
22770 (3d Cir. Oct. 15, 2009) (stating that a prisoner’s legal obligation to prepay his
filing fee is automatically incurred by the very act of initiating a legal action) (relying on
Hall v. Stone, 170 F.3d 706, 707 (7th Cir. 1999)), although, under certain circumstances,
this Court may permit an indigent plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. 4
If Plaintiff elects to proceed with litigation of this matter and either prepays the
filing fee or duly obtains in forma pauperis status, he must accompany his filing fee or
his in forma pauperis application with an amended pleading void of any references to
“Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Moorish Science,” “National Sovereignty,” “Moorish
Merchant Marine [Law,]” and the like, because claims based on sovereign citizenship or
redemptionist beliefs are facially meritless. See Instant Matter, ECF No. 1, at 1 and 3
of such habeas petition, if filed.
The entire fee to be paid in advance of filing a civil complaint is $400. That fee
includes a filing fee of $350 plus an administrative fee of $50, for a total of $400. A
prisoner who is granted in forma pauperis status will, instead, be assessed a filing fee of
$350 and will not be responsible for the $50 administrative fee. A prisoner who is denied
in forma pauperis status must pay the full $400, including the $350 filing fee and the $50
administrative fee, before the complaint will be filed. The Prison Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-135, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), which amends
28 U.S.C. § 1915, establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are
attempting to bring a civil action in forma pauperis. Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking
to bring a civil action in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit, including a statement
of all assets and liabilities, which states that the prisoner is unable to pay the fee. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The prisoner also must submit a certified copy of his inmate trust
fund account statement(s) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of
his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The prisoner must obtain this certified
statement from the appropriate official of each correctional facility at which he was or is
confined during such six-month period. See id. To the extent that Plaintiff intended his
filing to constitute an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis, his request
will be denied without prejudice to seeking the same upon submission of a proper
application.
4
3
(raising claims based on these concepts); compare Bey v. Stumpf, Civ. No. 11-5684, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120076 (D.N.J. 2011) (detailing facial invalidity and frivolity of socalled “Marrakush” claims based on the litigants’ sovereign citizenship or redemptionist
beliefs and/or their possession of the so-called “world passports,” and/or Declarations by
the United Nations, provisions of the Barbary Treaties, in general, and the Treaty with
Morocco in particular, etc.); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a plaintiff’s pleading
obligation is to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 687 (2009) (same).
An appropriate Order follows.
/s Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler
United States District Judge
Dated: November 13, 2013
4
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?