Miller El et al v. State of Ohio et al

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff Michael Miller El's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is GRANTED, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), than an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan on 8/2/2022. (V,AR)

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 1 of 6. PageID #: 86

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL MILLER-EL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:22 CV 686
JUDGE BRIDGET M. BRENNAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Michael Miller-El filed this action on behalf of himself and Nathaniel
Taylor-El against the State of Ohio; “Cuyahoga Cleveland;” Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court Judges David Matia, Michael Russo, and Brendan J. Sheehan; Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor Michael O’Malley and Assistant Prosecutor Edward Brydle; Reeves Kelsey;
Corporals Lawler and Bitterman; Ohio Governor Mike DeWine; and Ohio Secretary of State
Frank LaRose. Plaintiff appears to challenge his extradition from Virginia and pending criminal
prosecution in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. He seeks $ 720,000,000.00 in
damages.
As an initial matter, Miller-El cannot file an action on behalf of another individual unless
he is an attorney licensed to practice in this Court. A party may plead and conduct his or her
case in person or through a licensed attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Eagle Associates v. Bank of
Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991). An adult litigant who wishes to proceed pro se
must personally sign the Complaint to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654;
Steelman v. Thomas, No. 87-6260, 1988 WL 54071 (6th Cir. May 26, 1988). None of the
documents contain Nathaniel Taylor-El’s signature and Miller-El is not a licensed attorney.
1

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 2 of 6. PageID #: 87

Taylor-El’s claims are therefore not properly before this Court. This Court will consider only the
claims of Miller-El.
I.

Background
Plaintiff Michael Miller-El indicates he is a Moorish American citizen. His Complaint is

composed largely of stream-of-consciousness statements, making it difficult to determine what
his legal claims are and the factual basis upon which they rest. It appears that Plaintiff was
indicted on June 20, 2019, by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on charges of intimidation of a
public servant, retaliation against a public servant, and telecommunications harassment against
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge David T. Matia and his staff. See State of Ohio v.
Miller-El, No. 1:22 CV 686 (Cuyahoga Cty Comm. Pl. Ct. indictment filed June 20, 2019). The
trial court issued a warrant for his arrest on June 20, 2019. He was arrested in Roanoke, Virginia
in July 2019 and was extradited to Ohio. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court docket
indicates the charges are still pending.
Plaintiff disputes the charges. He disputes that he was in Cleveland and fled to Roanoke
to avoid arrest. He contends the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts refused to accept Moorish
documents for filing. He states the Defendants would not answer the Writ Quo Warranto, Letter
Rogatory or Affidavit of Truth he sent to them. He claims the Defendants knew he and his
family were Moorish Americans and refused to give them anti-bribery statements, proof of
claim, certificates of participation for inside trading, the ‘cestui que trust account numbers” or
their foreign agent registration. He alleges he did not receive a sworn complaint attached to his
warrant. He contends that he is presenting this tort claim:
with assessment for Damages, supported by unanswered
Affidavits, Exhibits, and Writs, Letter Rogatory(s) in support of
Tort Claim and Affidavit of Negative Averment. Said Tort is
presented as a matter of right, arising out of Private Injuries and
2

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 3 of 6. PageID #: 88

violations of commercial due process violations of law, violation
of State and Federal Constitution, Statutes and Codes, in
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857.
Violation of Equal Protection of the law, fraud, treason, War
Crimes, Genocide and Denationalization Deprivation of Rights
title 42 U.S.C 1983, 16 Arn Jur., Sec 255.
(Doc. No. 1 at 4).
II.

Standard

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555.
The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than
“an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
3

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 4 of 6. PageID #: 89

pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
III.

Analysis

As an initial matter, this Court cannot interfere with a criminal action pending in state
court unless extraordinary circumstances are present. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45
(1971). When a person is the target of an ongoing state action involving important state matters,
he or she cannot interfere with the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action
involving claims that could have been raised in the state case. Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839,
844-48 (6th Cir.1988). If the state Defendant files such a case, Younger abstention requires the
federal court to defer to the state proceeding. Id; see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S.
1, 15 (1987). Based on these principles, abstention is appropriate if: (1) state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings
afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v.
Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Abstention is mandated whether the state
court proceeding is criminal, quasi-criminal, or civil in nature as long as federal court
intervention unduly interferes with the legitimate activities of the state. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.
All three factors supporting abstention are present. The criminal action against Plaintiff
is still pending and this Court acknowledges that state court criminal matters are of paramount
state interest. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45. The third requirement of Younger is that Plaintiff
must have an opportunity to assert his federal challenges in the state court proceeding. The
pertinent inquiry is whether the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal claims. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 430 (1979). The burden at this point rests on the
Plaintiff to demonstrate that state procedural law bars presentation of his claims. Pennzoil Co.,
4

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 5 of 6. PageID #: 90

481 U.S. at 14. The federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate
remedy, in the absence of “unambiguous authority to the contrary.” Id. at 15. Here, there has
been no showing that Plaintiff has been unable to assert his defenses to the criminal charges in
state court. The requirements of Younger are satisfied and this Court must abstain from
interfering in any pending state court criminal action against the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, even if this case would not interfere with the pending criminal action,
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He references 18 U.S.C §§ 41,
96, 201, 241, 242, 875, 1091, 1201, 1202, 2071, and 2076. These are all criminal statutes. Only
the United States Attorney can initiate criminal charges in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 547; Fed.
R. Crim. P. 7(c). Moreover, these criminal statutes do not provide a private right of action in a
civil case. Booth v. Henson, No. 06-1738, 2008 WL 4093498, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2008); U.S.
v. Oguaju, No. 02-2485, 2003 WL 21580657, *2 (6th Cir. July 9, 2003); Robinson v. Overseas
Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir.1994). He also references 42 U.S.C §§ 1985, and
1986. To establish a violation of § 1985, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendants conspired
together for the purpose of depriving him of the equal protection of the laws and committed an
act in furtherance of the conspiracy which was motivated by racial animus. Bass v. Robinson,
167 F.3d 1041, 1050 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, is largely devoid of factual
allegations. There are no facts suggesting any of the Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of
his civil rights based on his race. Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1985, his
claims for relief under § 1986 must also be dismissed as § 1986 imposes liability on those
individuals who have knowledge of any of the wrongs prohibited by § 1985 yet fail to prevent
them. Without a violation of § 1985, there can be no violation of § 1986.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
5

Case: 1:22-cv-00686-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 08/02/22 6 of 6. PageID #: 91

granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 2, 2022

___________________________________
BRIDGET M. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6