El-Bey v. New York Social Services Agencies et al
ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 4 Motion Ruling. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 01/05/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANEYA GEANNAIRE EL-BEY,
NEW YORK SOCIAL SERVICES
AGENCIES, et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the Complaint, (Doc. No. 1),
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Doc. No.
3), and Plaintiff’s motion seeking the status of her in forma pauperis application, (Doc. No. 4).
Pro se Plaintiff Aneya Geannaire El-Bey, a resident of the State of South Carolina, filed
this action on October 4, 2017, naming numerous federal, state, and private individuals and entities
as Defendants. They include: New York Social Services Agencies, University of the State of New
York, “Housing Authority,” Social Security Administration, City of New York Vital Records,
South Carolina Department of Vital Records, York Electric Cooperative, “Treasury Retail
Securities Submission,” and Carolinas Health Care Systems Behavioral Health Centers. (Doc. No.
1 at 1). Plaintiff seeks a “permanent injunction” “to restore my good name back to its proper
original Authentic private citizen status, as well as seeking to restore and protect myself and my
chidlrens economic health as well as being for future preservation for self growth and
development, conscious awareness of self to experience, appreciate, and enjoy life to the fullest.”
(Doc. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff appears to believe that the United States Government, its agencies, and
representatives, have been depriving her of funds as far back as her high school years because it
considers her a United States citizen despite her assertions to the contrary:
I guess I can honestly say I probably became aware of the error [when she
sought money for clothes and food in high school] and tried to reject what resulted.
In error, was when I was given an application by a United States U.S. government
agency representative, and it asked the question are you a U.S. citizen yes or no? I
said no because I honestly did not know what that was a U.S. citizen. I could not
honestly check yes to that question so I truthfully said no. when I asked the
representative what was a U.S. citizen? I was told by the United States U.S.
government agency representative directing me to fill out the form, that I was a
U.S. citizen born in the United States and that I was a U.S. citizen. When I rejected
and explained I was not a U.S. citizen and did not know what that was, as I was
there requesting assistance for purchases for goods and services from the agency
who promotes assistance in support of those with no money or means to pay in full.
The way I was directed to fill out their forms left me with no real way to take care
of needs for my well being. I was told they would not help with clothing, food, and
utilities. I would have to go to each different agency for help and apply for
assistance, get a GED for a job to earn income and that I had to bring a birth
certificate and a social security card to get any help in assistance or support. I was
clearly being forced, as I was told I was a U.S. citizen although I told them I was
not. As I signed I put all rights reserved, drew lines through my signature to show
my rejection on applications they said was my only option to request support for
my well being. I have been trying for years to notify the United States government
agencies and its representatives my proper status and they still up to now continue
to ignore and deprive my children and I unalienable right to independence, right to
exist, and survive without harm and struggle. The United States U.S. government
and its representatives not meeting their obligations to I and my children as a natural
right, leaving us held back with no protection or economic means for proper growth
(Doc. No. 1 at 5-7).
Plaintiff claims that this situation has caused her stress and deprived her of adequate money
to pay her Section 8 rent, buy a home, buy food and clothing, and care for her children. (Doc. No.
1 at 9). Further, she claims to have received a letter in the middle of September from “Social
Security” stating they will no longer give her monthly payments. (Doc. No. 1 at 10).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or]
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court must
determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon
clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007). The statement of the claim does not require specific facts; instead, it “need only ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Id. (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). However, the statement must assert
more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
A pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); see also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Liberal construction of the
pleadings is particularly appropriate where … there is a pro se complaint raising civil rights
issues.”). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore
a clear failure to allege facts in the complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under
federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed without prejudice on initial review for several reasons.
First, the Compliant is frivolous because it fails to set forth a basis for liability against any
of the named Defendants. Plaintiff’s claims that she is being denied financial benefits because the
Government erroneously considers her a U.S. citizen, are nonsensical, conclusory and merit no
serious discussion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible....”); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of
frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘wholly
fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’ ”); Cush-El v. State, 2016 WL 1212427 at *2 (M.D.N.C.
March 10, 2016) (recommending dismissal of complaint wherein “[p]laintiff recites claims that
consist largely of incomprehensible ramblings composed of commercial and legal doctrines”), rep.
& recomm. adopted, 2016 WL 1228626 (March 28, 2016); United States v. True, 2003 WL
21254889 at *1 (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2003) (stating “the Court feels no duty to respond to the
substance of ... preposterous claims.”).
Second, the only relief Plaintiff seeks is a permanent injunction, for which she has failed
to state a facially sufficient claim. Under “well-established principles of equity,” a plaintiff seeking
a permanent injunction must demonstrate:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at
law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3)
that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a
remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006); Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637
F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff’s rambling and conclusory allegations fail to set forth facts supporting any of the
elements for granting a permanent injunction and, therefore, the only relief she seeks is
Finally, it does not appear that venue is proper in this district. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b), a plaintiff may bring a civil action in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides,
if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. §
Plaintiff presently resides in South Carolina, previously resided in New York, and all of
the Defendants except for Carolina Healthcare System, are located in either New York or South
Carolina. Plaintiff has failed to make any factual allegations whatsoever against the sole Defendant
that is located in North Carolina. To the extent that Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim
against any Defendant, venue would be proper in New York or South Carolina pursuant to Section
1391(b)(1), because the States of New York and South Carolina appear to be where a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, and Plaintiff resides in South
Moreover, should Plaintiff wish to challenge the alleged discontinuation of her Social
Security benefits, such an action must be brought in the jurisdiction where she resides. 1 See 42
Plaintiff is cautioned that timeliness and procedural requirements including exhaustion of administrative
remedies apply to a Social Security appeal.
U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the
judicial district in which the plaintiff resides, or has a principal place of business, or, if he does not
reside or have his principal place of business within any such district, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.”).
For the reasons stated herein, this action is dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff is granted
in forma pauperis status for the limited purpose of initial review, and her motion seeking the status
of her in forma pauperis application is denied as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 3), is GRANTED for
the limited purpose of this initial review.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling, (Doc. No. 4), is DENIED as moot.
The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
Signed: January 5, 2018
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?