James-Bey v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 30, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-1101
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JUN 30 2014 UNITED sTATEs msTmcT CoURT clerk, u.s. olstricc and FoR THE olsrmcr oF CoLUMBIA F¢'\l

TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Plaintiff,

CivilActionNo.

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, el al.,

\.,/\._/\._./\_,/\._/\._/\_/\\_/\\_/

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted_. and the complaint will be

dismissed as frivolous

The plaintiff alleges that, on February 23, 1980, defendants "negligently . . . misrepresent[ed] James-Bey’s natural person as a Black, Negro, etc., subject to the Assumable J`urisdiction of UNITED STATES citizenship," and thereby denied him the benefits of his "Moorish American sovereign status."’ Compl. at 2 (emphasis in original). As a result, plaintiff not only has been "denationalized," but also has been "falsely imprisoned" and forced to "suffer[] mental and physical anguish." Id. He demands ajudgment in his favor and damages of

$180 million. Id.

Based on the language of the complaint and its exhibits, see, e.g., Compl., Ex. (Decla.ration Aff`idavit of Moorish American National Status of inheritance and Indigenous Birth Rights) at 3, the plaintiff claims that he a Moorish American who therefore is not subject to the laws of the United States. This claim is patently frivolous. See United States v. Toader, 409 F.

App’x 9, 13 (7th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as frivolous arguments "that the federal courts lack subject

matter jurisdiction over [the defendant] and that the laws he is charged with violating are inapplicable to him because he is a Native Asiatic Moorish National Citizen"); Hall-El v. United States, No. ll-1037, 2013 WL 1346621, at *7 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 3, 2013) (Magistrate Report and Recommendation) ("Plaintift’ s claims which rely on international treaties or organizations and rights of Moorish nationals are clearly frivolous and do not state a claim against Defendants."), adopted, 2013 WL 5213428, at *l (M.D.N.C. Sept. ]6, 2013); Smz`th ex rel. Bey v. Kelly, No. 12- 2319, 2012 WL 1898944, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2012) (dismissing as frivolous claim that plaintiff is not subject to state court’s jurisdiction because he is a Moorish American); Pz`tt-Bey v_ Dz`srrz`ct of Cofumbz`a, 942 A.Zd 1132, 1135 (D.C. 2008) (rejecting claims that criminal defendant was "immune from prosecution in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia" and that he "should be accorded diplomatic immunity pursuant to federal law" based on his status as a member of The Nation of Moorish Americans); see also El Bey v. Centralia Polz`ce Dep ’r, No. 13-313, 2013 WL 1788514, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2013) ("Plaintiff is free to call himself

a Moorish American National, or any other description that suits him. However, he is subject to

state and federal laws, just like any other person regardless of citizenship.").

The Court will grant the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i), l9l5A(b)(l). An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATI~;: é/ %"‘l ,,q¢@/

United tates i)né}udge

@ 0/1%7