EL BEY V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 13

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 9/26/2014. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
HOLY PHAROAH
MELCHIZEDEK MALIK
:
HA’ EL CHIM RUSUL ‘ALU
ADMIRAL ALA’AD-DIN
:
LUNARIEL SOLARIEL
AL’AHEZAAH EL-BEY, ED.D,
:
Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Civil Action No. 14-4801 (SRC)

:

:
Defendant.
____________________________________:
:
PHAROAH DR. ADMIRAL
A.L.S.A. EL-BEY,
:
Plaintiff,

:

v.

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

Civil Action No. 13-6798 (SRC)

OPINION

Defendant.
:
____________________________________
These two matters are before the Court upon Plaintiff’s submission of a civil complaint in
Holy Pharoah Melchizedek Malik Ha’ El Chim Rusul ‘Alu Admiral Ala’ad-din Lunariel Solariel
Al'ahezaah El-Bey, Ed.D v. United States, Civil Action No. 14-4801, and a document titled
“Notice of Apostle of Direct Appeal to Moor” in Amin-Bey a/k/a Pharoah Dr. Admiral A.L.S.A.
El-Bey v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-6798.

Plaintiff has an extensive history of litigation in this District, which has been detailed by
this Court in Civil Action No. 13-6798, ECF No. 9. The Court will not provide a complete
recitation here. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff, a federal pre-trial detainee currently confined and
under treatment at the Medical Center at Devens, Massachusetts, has commenced numerous civil
actions in this District. Each of Plaintiff’s previous civil actions have been terminated for failure
to submit his filing fee or in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. See, e.g., Civil Action No. 136798, ECF No. 9, ECF Nos. 9. In each case, his requests for IFP status were denied without
prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff’s numerous deficient pleadings and post-pleading applications
have been dismissed, with explanations as to why those submissions were deficient and with
leave to file appropriate civil complaints. See id.
Thus far, Plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies in his prior civil actions, and the
submissions addressed in this Order suffer from similar deficiencies. In Civil Action No. 144801, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application, and he raises challenges
that fall outside this Court’s Article III mandate. See id., ECF No. 1 (seeking production of the
transcript from the St. Peter’s University as to Plaintiff’s alleged “Scholastic Preparation as a
Graduate of the Jesuit University”). Furthermore, his “Notice of Apostle of Direct Appeal to
Moor,” filed in Civil Action No. 13-6798, is substantively identical to a filing that this Court
deemed incoherent in another of his actions, Civil Action No. 13-5499. See Civil Action No. 135499, ECF No. 17 (discussing ECF No. 16 filing). More to the point, Plaintiff’s incoherent filing
in Civil Action No. 13-6798 does not constitute an IFP application.
Since Plaintiff’s submissions do not qualify as valid IFP applications, this Court will
deny him IFP status without prejudice and direct the Clerk to administratively terminate these

2

matters subject to reopening upon receipt of proper IFP applications and pleadings that supply
this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. 1
An appropriate Order follows.

s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: September 26, 2014

The Court will not construe Plaintiff’s “Notice of Apostle of Direct Appeal to Moor” as a
notice of appeal since Plaintiff’s numerous appeals from this Court’s prior rulings, which are
substantively indistinguishable from the instant determination, have already been filed with the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and are currently pending before that Court.
1

3