Bey v. United States Department of Justice

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 2, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0037
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ADMIRAL ALA’AD-DIN BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 26 - 37 (LLA) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In August 2011, Admiral Ala’Ad-Din Bey was charged with assaulting a federal officer in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b). See Compl. at 1-2, United States v. Amin-Bey,

No. 16-CR-91 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011), ECF No. 1. In 2016, he pleaded guilty to the one-count

information. Minute Entry, United States v. Amin-Bey, No. 16-CR-91 (D.N.J. Feb. 29, 2016), ECF

No. 59. He was sentenced to time served and a one-year term of supervised release. See Judgment

at 2-3, United States v. Amin-Bey, No. 16-CR-91 (D.N.J. May 12, 2016), ECF No. 64.

In 2023, Mr. Amin-Bey filed a 793-page pro se motion seeking to reopen his criminal case.

Request to Reopen Case, United States v. Amin-Bey, No. 16-CR-91 (D.N.J. May 22, 2023), ECF

No. 65. The court denied his request and his subsequent motions without prejudice, explaining

that “[t]o the extent Defendant is petitioning to set aside his plea or sentence, he must file a motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Order at 1-2, United States v. Amin-Bey, No. 16-CR-91

(D.N.J. June 16, 2023), ECF No. 74. Mr. Amin-Bey then filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, apparently challenging his 2016 conviction on jurisdictional grounds. See Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, at 2, Amin-Bey v. United States, No. 23-CV-3512 (D.N.J. June 28, 2023), ECF No. 1. The court issued an order requiring Mr. Amin-Bey show cause

why the case should not be dismissed because he was no longer in custody. Order at 3, Amin-Bey

v. United States, No. 23-CV-3512 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2023), ECF No. 11. That order

administratively terminated the case pending receipt of Mr. Amin-Bey’s response. Id.

Mr. Amin-Bey twice appealed the show-cause order, but his appeals were dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction because there was no final appealable order. See Amin-Bey, No. 23-CV-3512, ECF

Nos. 12 to 15, 17, 18, 21.

Mr. Amin-Bey subsequently commenced this action against the U.S. Department of

Justice. ECF No. 1. He alleges that “the Department of Justice & United States District Court [for

the] District of New Jersey [have] violated [his] Moorish Afrimerican Islaamic faith-based

religious freedom of speech rights to proclaim [his] autocephalous Moorish Afrimerican

Nationality & autocephalous aboriginal Moorish Afrimerican Islaamic Universal Religion of

Truth.” Id. at 1. Although his complaint is no picture of clarity, it appears that he is again

challenging his criminal conviction in the District of New Jersey. See, e.g., id. (discussing the

“District of New Jersey[‘s] facilitation of abuse of process & malicious prosecution”); id. at 2

(explaining that he has submitted declarations “for the purpose of overturning the verdict for

criminal case 2:16-cr-91 in the United States District Court of New Jersey”); id. at 4-5 (arguing

that he entered into his plea of guilty under duress).

It is well established that this court “lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal

courts.” Klayman v. Rao, 49 F.4th 550, 552 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (quoting Smalls v.

United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006)); see Calderon v. Brown, No. 15-CV-75, 2015

WL 222164, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2015) (“As a general rule applicable here, this [c]ourt lacks

subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court[.]”). The court will accordingly

2 dismiss Mr. Amin-Bey’s case for lack of jurisdiction. In light of that dismissal, the court will deny

as moot his motion for service by the United States Marshals Service. ECF No. 2. A

contemporaneous order will issue.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge

Date: April 2, 2026