Bellamy v. Parties listed in case 8:16-cv-3320 et al et al

Filing 11

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 9 of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of the Court, and DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice and without service of process. This action is designated a "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 04/24/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FLORENCE DIVISION

Travis Bellamy, #323612,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 4:17-445-RMG

)
)
)
)

v.

)

ORDER AND OPINION

)

Parties listed in case 8:l6-cv-3320, et al.,

)
)

Defendants.

)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending summary dismissal of the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff filed a Form A0241, a petition for § 2254 habeas relief, but scratched out the title
and typed "Writ of Error" and "§ 1983" in place of "habeas." Plaintiff appears to be attempting to
appeal the results of other federal cases:
The issues being argued in this case are essentially the same issues being argued in
the MuQuit case 8: l4-cv-3555-RBH-JDA, also those issues and claims being
argued in cases 4:l6-cv-2939, 31Ol-3l0-MBS-TER which were blocked by Judge
Seymour, who was required to recuse herself, creating a structural error that void
her jurisdiction for Due Process violation. This applies to Judge Cain in case 0: 16­
cv-992. The issues argued in those related cases are now argued within this case
as well, to include those claims, § 1983 actions and Writs of Errors presented in
their totality. I am one of the 300+ inmates who attempted to get the legal issues
of controversy heard in my case only to be subjected to egregious acts of
machination and fraud upon the court behind religious, political and social claims
argued in this case and its connection to the Crawford case. Lawrence L. Crawford
is a Foreign Sovereign King, Kalifah, Imam and High Priest to The (4) Global
Thrones Of The Reestablished Global Theocratic State.
(Dkt. No.1 at 3-4.) Plaintiff proceeds for 37 single-spaced, typed pages, complaining that state
prosecutors mentioned the religious beliefs of the "King-Khalifah," apparently meaning Lawrence
Crawford, during the state-court murder trial of the "King-Khalifah." For relief, Plaintiff seeks

-1­

vacatur of his conviction, transfer to a prerelease camp, consolidation of this case with others,
transfer of this action and other cases before this Court to New Jersey, and removal of his name
and DNA "from all derogatory files."
The complaint extensively references and is essentially identical to the several thousand
pages of frivolous filings inMuquitv. McFadden, 8: 14-3555-RBH-JDA (D.S.C.), Sutcliffe v. Cain,
4:16-2939-MBS-TER (D.S.C.), Cook v. Cain, 4:16-3101-MBS-TER (D.S.C.), Sutcliffe v.

s.c.

Supreme Court, 0:16-922-TMC-PJG (D.S.C.), Bellamy v. Warden, Lieber CI, 4:16-cv-3807­
RMG-TER (D.S.C.), Muquit v. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16-1953, 8:16-3194-RBH­
JDA (D.S.C.), Cook v. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16-1953, 8:16-3327-RBH-JDA
(D.S.C.), Crawford v. The Judges Who Issue Order in Case 16-1953, 8:16-3328-RBH-TER
(D.S.C.), Cook v. McFadden, 1:16-3853-RMG-SVH (D.S.C.), and In re Lawrence Crawford, 17­
1415 (4th Cir.), as well as many cases in South Carolina state courts. An unidentified inmate is
filing thousands of pages of frivolous filings in many cases including the instant case. The present
complaint is an effort by that unidentified litigant to pursue claims rejected or pending in other
actions, rather than a proper complaint alleging violations of the Constitution under color of state
law injuring Mr. Bellamy (or a petition challenging Mr. Bellamy's conviction or sentence under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, had he not crossed-out "2254" and wrote in "writ of error" and "1983" on his
Form A0241).
The Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal of the complaint on March 29,
2017. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the foregoing
reasons and for the reasons the Magistrate Judge ably sets forth in the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that the complaint is frivolous, that it fails to state a claim, and
that it is therefore subject to summary dismissal under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L.

-2­

No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-71 (1996).

The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the Order of the Court, and DISMISSES the
complaint with prejudice and without service of process. This action is designated a "strike"
pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard MarkGeigel
United States District Court Judge
April '2Iy, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-3­