Deodat et al v. Williams et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 3 are denied. Additionally, it is apparent that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case; this action is therefore remanded t o the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of that court, to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiffs, and to close the case. Given that this is the plaintiffs' second baseless attempt at removal, the plaintiffs are advised that if they persist in filing frivolous or vexatious actions, the Court may enter an order barring the filing of any future in forma pauperis complaint without prior leave of the Court. Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 6/3/2024. (PMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
SISTER MONIE MA’AT RA BEY & BROTHER
MAURICE MOSIRIS RA BEY, 1
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CV-2783 (EK)(LB)

-againstMALINI DEODAT; OMADAT DEODAT; SETH
ROSENFIELD; CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF QUEENS;
CLIFTON NEMBHARD; HENRY DALE; ERIC
ADAMS; and KATHY HOCHUL,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
The plaintiffs in this case, Monie Ma’at Ra Bey and
Maurice Mosiris Ra Bey, are parties to an eviction proceeding
currently before the New York City Civil Court, County of
Queens.

See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 8.

They are now

seeking — for the second time — to remove that action to this
Court.

Neither plaintiff paid the required filing fee.

See 28

The caption of the submission identifies these individuals as “Moorish
American Nationals of the Moroccan Empire and rightful heiress of Al Maghrib,
Al Aqsa, Northwest Amexem/North America by jus sanguinis, in full life, in
propria persona, sui juris, authorize rep., ex rel(s) Monique Williams (ens
legis) and Maurice Richards (ens legis).” The caption of the attached
landlord and tenant matter names Malini Deodat and Omadat Deodat as
Petitioners and Maurice Richard, Monique Williams, John Doe and Jane Doe as
Respondents. In an attached “Legal Notice!” “Monie Ma’at Ra Bey” claims to
have been previously known under a “former name” of “Monique Bartholomew.”
ECF No. 1 at 27. In a separate “Legal Notice!” “Maurice Mosiris Ra Bey”
claims to have a “former name” of “Maurice A. Richards.” Id. at 31. As the
pages of the submission are not consecutively paginated, the court refers to
the pages assigned by the Electronic Case Filing System (“ECF”).
1

U.S.C. § 1914.

Instead, they filed blank applications to

proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by documents titled
“Affidavit of Fact in Lieu of In Forma Pauperis.”
3.

ECF Nos. 2,

Those documents provide no information about the plaintiffs’

assets or income, let along information sufficient to suggest,
as required, that they are “unable to pay” filing fees “or give
security therefore.”

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

forma pauperis status is denied.

Therefore, in

See Deodat et al v. Richard et

al, No. 22-CV-4650 (EK), ECF No. 10 (denying IFP status in
removal attempt from the same eviction proceeding by the same
parties). 2
Additionally, it is apparent that the court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case for the same reasons
it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ prior removal
action.

The underlying state eviction proceeding presents no

federal question.

See Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT&T, 138

F.3d 479, 485 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Removal is proper only if the

2 The 2022 removal action was effectively identical to the instant
action. See id. Brother and Sister Ra Bey — or Maurice Richard and Monique
Williams, as they referred to themselves in the prior action — did not pay
the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis in that
case. Instead, as here, they submitted “Affidavits In Lieu of Informa [sic]
Pauperis,” 22-CV-4650, ECF Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, but the documents did not
establish that they were “unable to pay” the filing fees “or give security
therefor.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Moreover, the documents filed in the
2022 action did not provide any basis for this court’s subject matter
jurisdiction over the eviction action. For those reasons, the court remanded
the action to the Queens County Civil Court by Order dated November 30, 2022.
22-CV-4650, ECF No. 10.

2

federal question appears plainly on the face of a well-pleaded
complaint.”). 3

“Wrongful eviction claims, whether for a

temporary or final eviction, are state law claims over which
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”

Allied Manor

Road LLC v. Berrios, No. , 2017 WL 5558650, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
20, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Kheyn v. City of New
York, No. , 2010 WL 3034652, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010)
(collecting cases) (holding that “it is well settled that the
landlord-tenant relationship is fundamentally a matter of state
law”).

The plaintiffs also have not asserted diversity of

citizenship; indeed, all parties appear to reside in New York
State.

Thus, remand is required.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);

Mignogna v. Sair Aviation, Inc., 937 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1991).
This action is therefore remanded to the Civil Court
of the City of New York, County of Queens.

The Clerk of Court

is respectfully directed to send a certified copy of this Order
to the Clerk of that court, to mail a copy of this Order to the
plaintiffs, and to close the case.

Given that this is the

second baseless attempt at removal, the plaintiffs are advised
that if they persist in filing frivolous or vexatious actions,
the Court may enter an order barring the filing of any future in
forma pauperis complaint without prior leave of the Court.
Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
3

3

28 U.S.C. § 1651; see, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d
1254, 1261 (2d Cir. 1984) (“Federal courts have both the
inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect
their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to
carry out Article III functions.”); Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d
121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (a district court has the authority to
issue a filing injunction when “a plaintiff abuses the process
of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless,
frivolous, vexatious or repetitive ... proceedings”).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 3, 2024
Brooklyn, New York

4