MATEEN SHABAZZ v. STEVENS
Filing
7
OPINION & ORDER that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Docket No. 18-479, D.E. 5-1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; that Plaintiff's Complaints on Docket Nos. 18-644 and 18-509 (as amended by the Amended Complaint reviewed herein) are similarly DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A copy of this Opinion & Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail return receipt, and the Clerk is directed to close the file, etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 7/10/18. (cm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ,
Plainttff
Civil Action No.
18-479 (JMV) (CLW)
V.
OPINON & ORDER
STEPHEN S. CRAWFORD,
MICHAEL CHO, and LEXXI MACK,
Defendants.
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ.
Plaintiff
Civil Action No.
18-644 (JMV) (CLW)
V.
OPINON & ORDER
BRIAN T. STEVENS,
Defendant.
ABDUL-RAHMAN MATEEN
SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff
Civil Action No.
18-509 (JMV) (CLW)
V.
OPINION & ORDER
STEPHEN S. CRAWFORD,
MICHAEL CHO, and LEXXI MACK,
Defendants.
John Michael Vazguezg U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Abdul-Rahrnan Mateen Shabazz (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint and an application
to proceed informapauperis on January 12, 2018 under Docket No. 18-479. D.E. 1. The Court
granted Plaintiff informa pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 but dismissed Plaintiffs
Complaint (along with two others filed under docket numbers 18-644 and 18-509) without
prejudice on March 22, 2018. D.E. 2. Plaintiff has now filed an Amended Complaint (“First
Amended Complaint” or “FAC”).’
Because Plaintiff is still proceeding in forma
D.E. 5-1.
patcperis, the Court screens Plaintiffs FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court
now dismisses the first Amended Complaint with prejudice because Plaintiff fails to state a
plausible claim for relief.
V/hen allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forina pauperis the Court must review the
complaint and dismiss the action if it determines the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). When considering dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the Court must apply the same standard of
review as that for dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Schreane v. Seana, 506 Fed. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012). To state a claim that survives a Rule
1 2(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Belt Atlantic Corp.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
‘Plaintiff indicated in his letter, D.E. 8, that he intends this Amended Complaint to serve as the
Amended Complaint for all three cases, Docket Nos. 18-479, 18-644, and 18-509. Thus, this
Opinion & Order applies to all three cases and will be posted on all three dockets.
2
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,2 the Court construes Plaintiffs first Amended
Complaint liberally and holds it to a less stringent standard than papers filed by attorneys. Homes
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). “The Court need not, however, credit apro se plaintiffs
‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions.” D ‘Agostino v. C’ECOMRDEC, 2010 WL 3719623, at *1
(D.N.J. Sep. 10, 2010).
As stated above, after screening Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court dismissed it (and, as noted,
along with two others filed under docket numbers 18-644 and 18-509) without prejudice. The
Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days addressing the
deficiencies noted in the Court’s Opinion & Order, D.E. 2, if he so chose.
However, Plaintiff
merely re-states the same allegations as those in the initial Complaint without providing any further
basis or reasoning for the alleged violation of law or the damages requested. FAC at 2. Therefore,
even construing the pleadings liberally, Plaintiffs FAC still fails to allege sufficient facts in
support of the relief sought and does not assert a plausible claim.
In Plaintiffs initial Complaint, he alleged that Defendants were in default for a balance of
three credit card debts. Although it was not entirely clear to the Court, it seemed as though Plaintiff
sought monetary damages under a “claim of commercial lien” of his own design and creation. See
D.E. 1, “Affidavit of Obligation Claim of Commercial Lien.”
Plaintiff also stated in the
Plaintiff claims that he is not proceeding pro se, but that instead “[tjhis litigation is ‘In Propria
Persona.” D.E. 4 at 1. In propria persona is a Latin phrase, meaning “in one’s own person.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 912 (10th ed. 2014). It is also the equivalent of pro Se. Id. Plaintiff also
submits documents under the “Moorish National Republic” and indicates that he is “a living,
breathing, natural born, free man on the soil Sui Juris[.]” D.E. 4 at 1. The Court is not clear as
to what Plaintiff means by these declaration or what impact they have on his cases.
2
3
“Statement of Claim” in the initial Compliant here and the two other initial Complaints that the
Defendant(s) were “in Default and Dishonor due to his acquiescence of the Private Administrative
Procedure I have completed via Notary Protest.” See D.E. 1 at pg. 4. Documents purportedly
annexed to the initial Complaint showing various mailings Plaintiff sent to Defendants were not
attached. Plaintiff then attempted to describe a debt by attributing it to Defendant Brian T. Stevens,
who purportedly works for Mercedes Benz, and then calculated the “commercial penalty” by using
proverbs from the Bible. Thus, Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead any cause of action and his three
Complaints were dismissed without prejudice. D.E. 2.
In Plaintiffs FAC, Plaintiff does not provide a statement of claim but instead states, “See
Attached Document.” D.E. 5-1 at 4. Arguably, Plaintiffs submission at D.E. 4 can be construed
as his statement of claim. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe it as such.
In Plaintiffs FAC, the Court believes Plaintiff is alleging violations of U.C.C.
U.S.C.A.
§ 3-603, 1$
§ 1341 and 42 C.F.R. § 1001.1101. See D.E. 4 at pg. 2. However, the exhibits and
documents annexed to Plaintiffs FAC still fail to provide sufficient facts to support a violation of
any of the aforementioned statutes.
U.C.C.
§ 3-603(b) requires:
“If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person
entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to
the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or
accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to
which the tender relates.”
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to respond to any Notary Presentments/Affidavits,
and instead continued to send bills to his domicile. D.E. 4; D.E. 4-2. Plaintiff attached his various
bank statements with Capitol One as well as a “Payoff Statement” to his FAC, however these
exhibits fail to provide sufficient facts to support the allegation that tender was made and refused.
4
See D.E. 4-2. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to provide enough facts to support that payment was
tendered correctly, and Defendants refused to accept tender as required under U.C.C.
§ 3-603.
More importantly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a private right of action under U.C.C.
§ 3-603 even if Plaintiff could sufficiently prove payment was tendered correctly and Defendant’s
refused to accept.3 U.C.C.
§ 3-603; see also Jones v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 4:13CV1762
CDP, 2014 WL 307055, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2014) (holding Plaintiff failed to state a claim
under the U.C.C. as
§ 3-603 relates to the rights of endorsers and accommodation parties and
therefore does not provide discharge of Plaintiffs debt obligations.)
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant violated 1$ U.S.C.
§ 1341 similarly fails as Plaintiff did
not provide enough factual support to establish the essential elements of the claim. The elements
of an offense under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1341 are (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the
participation by the defendant in the particular scheme charged with the specific intent to defraud;
and (3) the use of the United States mails in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. United States
v. Hannigan, 27 F.3d 890, 892 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Barks, 867 f.2d 795, 797 (3d
Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has not provided any factual support to demonstrate a scheme existed to
defraud Plaintiff, or that Defendant specifically intended to defraud Plaintiff. The FAC merely
asserts, “both Corporations conspired to commit fraud against me by sending billing statements
and notices of defaults to my domicile soliciting fiat currency when Defendants were sent initial
presentments citing HJR 192 Public Law 78-10 requesting proof that gold and silver were put back
into circulation in the United States to back the US Dollar.” See D.E. 4 at pg. 2. Plaintiffs F AC
therefore provides legal conclusions without any factual support provided by the attached exhibits
31t is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff is bringing a cause of action under the New Jersey
Uniform Commercial Code. Plaintiff failed to indicate a cause of action under the U.C.C. and
failed to demonstrate how this provision applies.
5
and documents. More importantly, Section 1341 is a criminal statute and does not independently
provide Plaintiff with a private civil cause of action.
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and their agents violated 12 U.S.C.
§ 183 ln(a),
which governs the activities of insured banks and requires all federally-insured banks to follow
General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Plaintiff adds that Defendants violated 42
C.F.R.
§ 1001.1101, which allows an entity to be excluded from participation in federally funded
healthcare programs if the entity did not fully and accurately make disclosures. It is unclear to the
Court why Plaintiff alleges a breach of 42 C .F.R.
§ 1001.1101. This provision permits the Office
of Inspector General within the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to exclude
individuals and entities from federally funded health care programs pursuant to section 1128 of
the Social Security Act. The Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why this provision relates to his claim
or the relief sought.
As to 12 U.S.C.
§ 183 ln(a), Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate there was
a violation of the statute. More importantly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a private
right of action for a violation of this provision. Plaintiff provides documentation of his billing
statements with Capitol One and various notices from agents of both corporations (Capitol One
and Mercedes Benz) including “Notice of Default in Dishonor”, “Certification of Non-Response”,
and “Affidavit of Specific Averment.” D.E. 4-2. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how
these documents provide an adequate factual basis in support of the allegation that any Defendant
violation Section 1831 n(a).
Among other things, Plaintiff also indicates that (1) he is aware that “U.S. Bankruptcy is
verified in Senate Report No. 93-549[,J”; (2) he is a “Sovereign Man” and “Holder in Due Course’
of Preferred Stock”; (3) he has been “estopped from using and has no access to ‘lawful
6
constitutional money of exchange”; and (4) he includes several references to federal reserve notes.
D.E. 4 at 3-4. The Court is not sure what Plaintiff means by these statements or their relevance to
his case.
In addition, the “Relief’ section of Plaintiffs FAC merely re-alleges the exact same
proposed relief described in the initial Complaint. Id. The various exhibits and documents
attached to the FAC fail to provide sufficient factual support of each of Plaintiffs claims.
Document 4 provides Plaintiffs “Affidavit of Fact.” Document 4-1 provides Plaintiffs birth
certificate as well as his various bank statements with Capitol One. Document 4-2 provides tax
forms, “Notice of Default in Dishonor and Consent to Judgment”, “Certification of NonResponse”, “Affidavit of Specific Negative AvenTlent”, “Payoff Statement” and an “Odometer
Disclosure Statement.” Document 4-3 provides Plaintiffs “Affidavit of Beneficial Ownership,”
and various certified mail receipts. Some of the documents, such as those found at D.E. 4-1 at 5,
7, appear to be of Plaintiffs own creation rather than actual official documents.
Although Plaintiff attached these exhibits to his FAC, Plaintiff fails to assert any additional
facts or cure any of the deficiencies of the initial Complaint. Plaintiff fails to establish how these
documents prove a breach of any of the statutory provisions alleged. Therefore, the legal basis
under which Plaintiff is proceeding is still unclear and the Court remains uncertain why Defendants
owe Plaintiff anything.
Because the FAC fails to cure the deficiencies noted previously by the Court, because the
FAC also repeats allegations which the Court already found to be deficient, because the Court still
cannot discern what precisely Plaintiff is claiming, and because Plaintiff appears to be creating his
own documents which he thinks are official, the Court finds that any further amendments would
be futile. For the above reasons, and for good cause shown,
7
IT IS on this 10t1 day of July, 201$,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint in Docket No. 18-479, D.E. 5-1, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaints on Docket Nos. 18-644 and 18-509 (as amended
by the Amended Complaint reviewed herein) are similarly DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
and it is further
ORDERED that a copy of this Opinion & Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff via certified
mail return receipt; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
chelVazkJ’jDJ.
8
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?