Bey v. State of New York et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pltff's request for injunctive relief is denied as moot. Although Pltff has paid the filing fee to initiate this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. (Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 5/4/2012) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BROTHER LOVE BEY,
-~I '·-~ "J:£7
US DISTRICT u·'
STATE OF NEW YORK; CITY OF NEW
YORK; CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK; SHERIFF EDGAR A.
DOMENECH; MAGISTRATE HANNAH
COHEN; MAGISTRATE THOMAS
FITZPATRICK; MAGISTRATE JOHN S,
LANSDEN; CHIEF CLERK CAROL ALT;
CITY MARSHAL EDWARD F. GUIDA;
OFFICER SAUNDERS, Badge #4372;
OFFICER VILLAFANE, Badge #2720;
OFFICER BARRON, Badge #27649;
OFFICER RICHARDS, Badge #24235;
OFFICER DONNELLY, Badge #576;
LESTER WAYNE MACKEY, Esq,;
CHRISTINE CHAMPAGNE; PAUL
HUMPHRIES; TARRIQ MUHAMMAD;
LEND AMERICA; ABC REAL ESTATE
MAY 04 zo 2
KUNTZ, United States District Judge.
On May 2, 2012,pro se Plaintiff Brother Love Bey ("Plaintiff'), filed the instant complaint
along with a request for an order to show cause for a temporary restraining order challenging his
eviction. Plaintiff paid the filing fee to initiate this action. For the reasons discussed below, the
complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs request for injunctive
relief is denied as moot.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs complaint and attached exhibits.
On April3, 2012, the City Marshal Edward F. Guida, effected physical eviction of plaintiff from a
property located at 283 East 95th Street, Brooklyn, New York. See Compl. at Statement of Claim;
Notice of Marshal's Legal Possession, annexed to Affirmation. Following the eviction, Plaintiff
"and others broke back [into the property] and retook possession." See Champagne v. Pope/Doe,
Index No. I067I4/2011 (Decision/Order at I, Civil Court, Kings County, Apr. 25, 2012), annexed
to Affirmation. Permission was granted for the Marshal to re·execute the warrant of eviction
"forthwith." Id. Plaintiff alleges as a "Moorish-lunerican national," he is immune from the laws
of the United States. See generally Compl. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive
Standard of Review
At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must "accept as true all nonclusory
factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d Ill, 123
(2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677--<.79 (2009)). A complaint must plead
sufficient facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Com. v. Twombly,
u.s. 544, 570 (2007).
It is axiomatic that prose complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys, and the Court is required to read pro se Plaintiffs complaint liberally and to
interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant #I, 537 F.3d
185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
Regardless of whether a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, a district court has the inherent
power to dismiss a case sua sponte if it determines the action is frivolous or the court lacks
jurisdiction over the matter. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Com., 221 F .3d 362,
363-364 (2d Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
2550733, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2011) (same); Kheyn v. City ofNew York, Nos. 10-cv-3233,
!0-cv-3234, 2010 WL 3034652, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010).
Moreover, the Court notes Plaintiffs claim that he is immune from the laws of the United
States because he is a member of the "Moorish-American" nation is rneritless. See Bey v. Am.
Tax Funding, No. 11-cv-6458, 2012 WL 1495368, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2012) ("Petitioner's
purported status as a Moorish-American citizen does not enable him to violate state and federal
laws without consequence."); Gordon v. Deutsche Bank, No. 11-cv-5090, 2011 WL 5325399, at
"'1 n.l (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2011) (plaintiffs claim that as a Moorish-American he was not subject
to eviction held to be without merit); Bey v. Bailey, No. 09-cv-8416, 2010 WL 1531172, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2010) (petitioner's claim that he is entitled to ignore the laws of the State of
New York by claiming membership in the "Moorish-American" nation is without merit and carmot
be the basis for habeas relief); Allah El v. Dist. Att'y for Bronx Cnty., No. 09-cv-8746, 2009 WL
3756331, at *I (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2009).
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is denied as moot. Although Plaintiff has
paid the filing fee to initiate this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for
purposes of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962).
United States D~· t Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 4, 2012
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?