Supreme-El v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Read for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 10/26/2015. (ccol, )

I

II

IN THE XJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

0CT 26 2«5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

CLERK, U.S. DiSTRiCT COURT
RICHMOND. VA

METAPHYZIC EL-ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME-EL,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ^

3:14CV55

al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Metapyhzic

El-ectromagnetic

proceeding pro se and

§ 1983 action.
Moorish-American
(Moorish)
member

Nation

of

Government;

the

Supreme-El,

forma pauperis,

a

Virginia

filed

this

42

inmate
U.S.C.

Supreme-El claims that he is a "free sovereign
National,

...

a

Permanent Mission;
Autochthon

member
a

Yamassee

of

the

Amurican

diplomatic agent
Native

.

American

.

.;

a

Muurish

a foreign government irrespective of recognition by

the United States."

(Part. Compl. SI 5, ECF No. 20.)^

The Court

previously has rejected as frivolous claims for habeas relief by
Supreme-El
American.
2015

WL

reasons

based
See

1138246,

set

for

on

his

perceived

Supreme-El
at

*1-25

below,

v.

(E.D.

the

special

Dir.,

Court

status

as

Dep^t

Va.

of

Corr.,

Mar.

3,

2015).

will

dismiss

the

a

Moorish

3:14CV52,
For

claims

^ The Court corrects the capitalization in the quotations
from Supreme-El's submissions.

J

the

as

improperly

joined,

failure to state a

legally

and

factually

frivolous,

STANDARD OF KEVIEW

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act
Court must dismiss any action filed by a
determines the action

(1)

a

relief

on

which

§ 1915(e)(2);

includes

see

claims

for

claim.

I.

claim

and

28

"is frivolous"

may

U.S.C.

based

upon

§

be

this

prisoner if the Court
or

(2)

"fails to state

granted."

1915A.

"^an

("PLRA")

The

28
first

indisputably

U.S.C.
standard

meritless

legal

theory,'" or claims where the "^factual contentions are clearly
baseless.'"

1992)
The

Clay

v.

Yates,

(quoting Neitzke v.

second

standard

dismiss under Fed.

"A

motion

sufficiency

of

the

P.

complaint;

980 F.2d 943,
Arthur R.

952

Miller,

(4th Cir.

417,

490 U.S.

427

319,

standard

(E.D.

327

for

a

Va.

(1989)).

motion

to

12(b)(6).

under

Rule

importantly,

facts,

applicability of defenses."

Supp.

familiar

dismiss

contests surrounding the

F.

Williams,

R. Civ.

to

a

is

809

the merits

12(b)(6)

it

does

of a

tests

not

claim,

the

resolve

or the

Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,
1992)

(citing 5A Charles A. Wright &

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356

(1990)).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the
complaint

is

viewed

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

the

plaintiff.

Cir.

Mylan Labs.,

1993);

applies

see also Martin,

only

to

factual

considering

a

identifying

pleadings

conclusions,

motion

are

Ashcroft V.

The

Inc. v. Matkari,

Federal

dismiss

that,

556 U.S.

to

662,

of

Civil

{4th

and

are

"a

to

choose

they

1134

This principle

however,

the

679

952.

can

because

entitled

Rules

F.2d at

allegations,

to

not

Iqbal,

980

7 F.3d 1130,

begin

no

court

more

assumption

of

by
than

truth."

(2009).

Procedure

"require[

]

only

*a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is

entitled

to

relief,'

notice of what the
rests.'"

.

.

Bell Atl.

in
.

order

41,

47

Corp.

(1957)).

with complaints
"formulaic

v.

Twombly,

Id.

of

(citations omitted).

sufficient
level,"

"to

id.

raise

a

(citation

"plausible on its face,"
at

570.

pleads

"A

claim

factual

reasonable

has

content

inference

misconduct alleged."

the

defendant

only

the

cannot

fair

544,

555

(2007)

Gibson,

satisfy this

Instead,

to

of

cause

of

action."

above

stating

a

the

speculative

claim

that

rather than merely "conceivable."
facial
that

that

Iqbal,

plausibility
allows

the

or a

a plaintiff must allege facts

relief

omitted),

a

355

standard

"labels and conclusions"

elements

right

550 U.S.

(quoting Conley v.

Plaintiffs

containing

recitation

'give

claim is and the grounds upon which it

(second alteration in original)
U.S.

to

the

defendant

556 U.S.

at

when
court
is

678

the
to

liable

is

Id.

plaintiff
draw

the

for

the

(citing Bell Atl.

Corp.,

550

U.S.

at

556).

Therefore,

in

order

for

a

claim

or

complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim,

the

plaintiff

the

must

"allege

elements of

[his or]

& Co.,

F.3d

324

Microsoft

United States,

Lastly,

complaints,
1978),

it

765

309

while

F.3d

v.

not

Cir.

193,

the

Gordon

Bass v.

(4th

289 F.3d 270,

does

sufficient

her claim."

761,

Corp.,

facts

213

281

Leeke,

act

as

E.I.

2003)
(4th

the

F.2d

all

DuPont de Nemours

Dickson

v.

lodice

v.

2002);

2002)).

liberally

574

state

(citing

Cir.

{4th Cir.

Court

to

construes

1147,

inmate's

1151

advocate,

pro

(4th
sua

se

Cir.

sponte

developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed
to

clearly

Carroll,

raise

107

concurring);
{4th Cir.

on

face

241,

F.3d

the

243

Beaudett v.

his

{4th

complaint.
Cir.

See

1997)

Brock

v.

(Luttig,

J.,

775 F.2d 1274,

City of Hampton,

1278

1985).

II.

The

of

Federal

plaintiff's
pleading.
occurrence

Rules

ability

of

JOINDER

Civil

Procedure

to

See

Fed.

test'

of

join

multiple

R.

Civ.

P.

[Rule

20]

.

defendants

20(a).
.

.

place

"The

''permit [s]

limits

in

a

on

single

'transaction
all

a

or

reasonably

related claims for relief by or against different parties to be
tried in a

is

single proceeding.

unnecessary.'"

Saval v.

Absolute identity of all events

BL Ltd.,

4

710

F.2d 1027,

1031

(4th

Cir.

1983)

1333

(8th

plaintiff

(quoting Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
Cir.

1974)).

to

add

"But,

claims

Rule

20

'against

does

497 F.2d 1330,

not

different

authorize

parties

a

[that]

present[ ] entirely different factual and legal issues.'"

Sykes

V.

2008)

Bayer Pharm.

Corp.,

(alterations
No.

in

the

"And,

addition

objectives

2007

a

WL

of

the

of

delay.'"

Id.

party

is

action

Mine

toward

parties

Workers

impulse,

under

however,

the

entertaining
with

is

Gibbs,

Smith,

130

the
507

F.3d

1348,

605,

1350

v.

Va.

will

not

and

are

607

(9th

Lee,

Oct.

21,

foster

is

the

expense,

Support

mindful

Servs.,

U.S.

that

possible

parties;

strongly

715,

724

"the

scope

of

joinder

of

encouraged."

plaintiff

United

(1966) .

free

This

license

to

single lawsuit where the claims

unrelated.

{7th

the

2007)).

to

383

the

expediting

Chugach

broadest

not provide a

defendants
F.3d

v.

the

join multiple defendants into a
against

20

Court

fairness

remedies

does

Va.

but will result in prejudice,

joinder,

v.

(W.D.

convenience

(4th Cir.

of Am.

(E.D.

Lovelace
*1

Rule

Aleman

and

218

'deny joinder if i t determines that

218 n.5

consistent

claims,

at

(quoting

addressing

impulse

2d 208,

(quoting

[promoting

Inc. ^ 485 F.3d 206,

In

Supp.

3069660,

court may

resolution of disputes],
or

F.

original)

7:03cv00395,

2007)).

548

Cir.

Cir.

See,

2007);

1997).

e.g.,

Coughlin

Thus,

complaint that would be rejected if filed by a

George
v.

"[a]

v.

Rogers,

buckshot

free person—say.

a

suit

complaining

that

him, C punched him,
copyright,

all

Reform
20(a)."

(E.D.

"Thus,

George,

B defamed

Aug

include

McNeely,

23,

multiple

507 F.3d at 607.

obligations

("PLE<A")]

Coles v.

Va.

plaintiff,

in different transactions-should be rejected if

Court's

Act

the

D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his

filed by a prisoner."
"The

A defrauded

claims

review

No.

2011)

under

the
for

3:11CV130,

{citing

against

a

[Prison

Litigation

compliance

with

2011 WL 3703117,

George,

single

507

F.3d

party

are

at

Rule
at *3

607).

fine,

but

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated
Claim B against Defendant 2.
defendants

belong

in

Unrelated claims against different

different

suits,

not

only

to

prevent

the

sort of morass that these complaints have produced but also to
ensure

that

(citing

28

prisoners
U.S.C.

No. 7:08cv00276,

("To allow

pay
§

the

1915(g));

2009 WL 1321694,

[plaintiff]

required

filing

Showalter

at *4

(W.D.

Va.

fees."
v.

Id.

Johnson,

May 12,

2009)

to pay one filing fee yet join disparate

claims against dozens of parties flies in the face of the letter
and spirit of the PLRA." )

III.

Supreme-El's

SUMtlARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND

original

complaint

failed

defendant with fair notice of the facts
or

her

liability

rested.

CLAIMS

to

provide

each

and law upon which his

Accordingly,

by

Memorandum

Order

entered

on

submit

a

March

2015,

particularized

Supreme-El

comply

23,

that

with

parties.

the

the

As

proper

forthcoming

requirements

explained

joinder

of

below,

parties

further

the

parties.

and

page

requirements

Accordingly,

No. 3:08CV820,

5

2011 WL 1827440,

action,

15);

at

*3

see

except

the

named party in the body of the Particularized Complaint,
Compl.

the

claims

first

(Part.

from

must

seventy-six

comply with

to

warned

complaint

joining

Supreme-El's

and

Supreme-El

will

Fraim.

all

Court

properly

to

claims

The

particularized

for

fails

directed

Court

Mayor

drop

Court

complaint.

Particularized Complaint
for

the

Loney

(E.D.

Va.

v.

May

for

the

Wilder,
12,

2011)

(employing a similar procedure); Jackson v. Olsen, No. 3:09CV43,
2010

WL

724023,

remedies
Fed.

R.

at

available
Civ.

A.

P.

8(a)

*3
for

(E.D.

Va.

misjoinder

Mar.
and

1,

2010)

failure

to

(describing
comply

with

and 41(b)).

Pertinent Allegations With Respect to Joinder

Supreme-El

names

as

defendants

entities

and

individuals

ranging from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Part. Compl. f 6), to
Karen J. Burrell, a judge with the Circuit Court for the City of
Norfolk,
Norfolk

17),
(id.

5

11) ,

to Paul D,
to

Fraim,

David L.

the Hampton Roads Regional Jail
At the beginning of his

El

seeks

to

hold Mayor

the Mayor of the City of

Simons,

the

Superintendent

of

(id. ^ 14).

Particularized Complaint,

Fraim and

Norfolk

Police

Supreme-

Chief Sharon

Chamberlain liable because they failed to honor his "writ for a
freemans right to travel affidavit" to Mayor Fraim.

see id. 15 18-19.)^

Thereafter,

through its agencies,

from

held

(id.

^ 21) ,

pay child support.
an

incident

in

unidentified

and

him in

(Id. 1 26.)
February

member

of

the

backtracks

to

an

for

where

Norfolk

Police

(See id.

incident

in

failing

to

Supreme-El jumps to

2012,

excessive force against his person.
Supreme-El

17;

"extorted" money

servitude

From here,

of

I

Supreme-El complains that the

Commonwealth of Virginia,
him

(Id.

he

alleges

Department

SISI 31-49.)

2010,

when

an
used

Then,
he

was

arrested and complains that "Defendant, Sheriff Robert McCabe is
involved
Hampton

in

the

Roads

slavery."

trading

Regional

and

transporting

Jail . . .

(I^ SI 66; s^

and

SI5 59-65.)

of

inmates

practices

to

similar

the
to

Thereafter, Supreme-El

returns to the years 2012 and 2013 and complains of violations
of

his

rights

proceedings.

by

Simons

Roads Regional Jail,

food,

judges

involved

in

his

criminal

Next, Supreme-El makes a series of claims against

Superintendent

poor

the

and

for

alleged

deficiencies

at

the

Hampton

including inadequate grievance procedures,

being

forced

to

wear

an

incorrectly

labeled

armband.

^ The Court corrects the capitalization and punctuation in the
quotations to Supreme-El's submissions.
8

B.

Joinder Analysis

It

is

apparent

that

Supreme-El

has

submitted

the

sort

of

"mishmash of a complaint" that the rules governing the joinder
of parties aim to prevent.
(7th Cir.

George v.

Smith,

all of the Defendants,
of

a

conspiracy

Because Supreme-El's
more than a

2009)

Gooden

v.

1992));
184-85

to

allegation

(citing Ashcroft v.
Cty.,

Md.,

see Capogrosso v.
(3d

conspiracy
(10th Cir.

deprive

Francis v.

Howard

Cir.

2009)

conspiracy exists among

Supreme-El has not stated any plausible

legal conclusion,

plausible claim,"

Cir.

607

2007).

Although Supreme-El alleges that a

claim

507 F.3d 605,

him

of a

on its

954

his

conspiracy

civil

F.2d

960,

662,

(dismissing

(citing Crabtree v.

conclusory

Muchmore,

904

197

679

969-70

Supreme Court of N.J.,

to no

to assert a

588 F.3d 186,

556 U.S.

rights.

"amounts

face it fails

Giacomelli,

Iqbal,

of

(2009);

(4th

588

(4th

Cir.

F.3d 180,

allegations

F.2d 1475,

of

a

1480-81

1990) ) ) .

In order to

conspiracy,
^reasonably

satisfy his pleading burden with respect

Supreme-El
lead

to

the

"needed
inference

to

plead

that

facts

that

[Defendants]

to a

would

positively

or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a
common and unlawful

121,
81

132
F.3d

(4th Cir.
416,

421

plan.'"

2008)
(4th

Ruttenberg v.

(quoting Hinkle v.
Cir.

1996)).

Jones,

283

F.

App'x

City of Clarksburg,

"[T]he

bare,

conclusory

allegation

that

constitutional
Supreme-El's

the

[Djefendants

rights"

broad

is

claims

conspired

insufficient.
of

an

for

failure

to

state

Id.

overarching

encompass all of the named Defendants,

prejudice

to

a

violate

his

Accordingly,

conspiracy,

which

will be dismissed without

claim

and

as

legally

and

Supreme-El

has

factually frivolous.
Absent

a

plausible

failed to articulate a
of

the

named

Furthermore,
rambling

claim

of

common question of law and fact

Defendants.

See

narrative

of

of a

actions

occurrence,

Moreover,

or

to

that

series

given

Supreme-El

Fed.

R.

Civ.

for all

P.

20(a).

Supreme-El's Particularized Complaint consists of a
host

of perceived offenses,

incohesive and incomprehensible,
causes

conspiracy,

the

arise
of

"out

it simply fails
of

transactions

frivolous

proceed

that

with

nature

and

or

of

multiple

the

same

is

to allege

transaction,

occurrences."

his

claims,

claims

so

Id.

permitting

against

multiple

individuals and entities will not foster Rule 20's objectives of
promoting the expeditious resolution of disputes.
As

Order,

the

Court

admonished

in

the

March

23,

2015

Memorandum

the Court will drop all other Defendants as they are not

properly

724023,
prejudice

joined

at

with

*8,

all

of

Defendant

Accordingly,
Supreme-El's

against Defendant Fraim.

Fraim.

the
claims

See id.
10

See

Court

Jackson,

dismisses

except

at *8 n.7

for

his

2010

WL

without
claims

(explaining that,

in

light

of

Virginia's

prejudice

of

the

tolling

dismissal

constitutional

plaintiff's

provision,

claims

without
failed

to

create problems with respect to the statute of limitations).

IV.

ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS AGAINST MAYOR FRAIM

Supreme-El alleges that,

freemans

right

to

travel

Compl. 5^1 15, 17.)
Supreme-El's
before

the

place,

mission."

"foreign

had
(Id.

affidavit"

2011 he sent "a writ of

to

Mayor

Fraim.

(Part.

Supreme-El contends that Mayor Fraim knew of

incidents

and

on July 7,

status,
of

diplomatic

unlawful

foreknowledge
5t 152.)

and

arrest

of

sovereign

and

detention

[Supreme-El's]

Supreme-El

status

continues

took

permanent

that

he

is

a

member of "a class of nationals who are often abused by Norfolk
Police

Department."

falsely

imprisoned

(Id.)
because

Supreme-El
of

Mayor

insists

Fraim's

that

he

negligence.

is
(Id.

SI 154.)

It

is

both

unnecessary and inappropriate

extended discussion of the utter
theory

(4th

for

Cir.

consistent

relief.

1996)

with

See Cochran

(emphasizing

Congress's

U.S.

319,

324

v.

that

vision

(1989))).

Fraim's actions "constitute[

Morris,

73

F.3d

"abbreviated

for

in an

the

1310,

1315

treatment"

disposition

is

of

(citing Neitzke v. Williams,

Supreme-El
]

engage

lack of merit of Supreme-El's

frivolous or "insubstantial claims"

490

to

claims

that

Mayor

perjury of oath in violation of

11

the

Virginia

Constitution

Article

[§] 1621, and 18 U.S.C. [§] 241."
Court

notes

that

none

of

the

2

Section

7;

{1^ f 153.)^

above

cited

18

U.S.C.

Initially, the

statutory

provisions

provides a private right of action that would permit Supreme-El
to

sue Mayor

previously

Fraim in

informed

self-created

federal

Supreme-El,

status

as

Dir.,

(E.D.

Va.

a

Dep't of Corrs.,

Id.

at

Mar.

*5

flows

from

"possession

of

possession of a
while

controlled

carrying

a

Accordingly,
action

will

Moorish

No.

Moreover,

enjoys

no

American.

is

but

See

a

or

II

firearm by a

substance,

resisting

concealed weapon."
Supreme-El's
dismissed

Id.

claims
for

controlled

of

a

at

to

v.

citizen.
detention
for

substance,

possession of a

schedule

*2

his

*1-25

I

or

arrest/intimidation,

against

failure

at

convictions

convicted felon,

possession

Supreme-El

current

his

Court

from

an American

from

I

the

rights

Supreme-El's

discrimination,

schedule

as

2015 WL 1138246,

Supreme-El

omitted).

committing

be

he

3:14CV52,

2015).

(citation

not

firearm

3,

court.

II
and

(citation omitted).
Mayor

state

Fraim
a

and

claim

and

the
as

legally and factually frivolous.

The Clerk will be directed to note the disposition of the
action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

^ Title 18 U.S.C.

Section 241 criminalizes a conspiracy to

deprive another person of their civil rights.
Title
§

18

U.S.C.

Section

1621

criminalizes

1621.
12

18 U.S.C. § 241.

perjury.

18

U.S.C.

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

the

Memorandum

Opinion to Supreme-El.
It

is

so ORDERED.

/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date: October

,

2015

13