Longs Bey v. Secretary, Department of Treasury

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01394
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES LONGS BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1394-TPB-CPT

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS AND CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff Michael James Longs Bey’s pro se complaint, filed on June 5, 2025. (Doc. 1). After reviewing the complaint, court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ it does require ‘more than labels and conclusions’; a ‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not do.’” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV, 2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). As Plaintiff in this case is proceeding pro se, the Court more liberally construes the pleadings. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018). However, a pro se plaintiff must still conform with procedural rules and the Court does not have “license to act as de facto counsel” on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. United States v. Padgett, 917 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff – who identities himself as “a living man and Moorish American National” – has filed what may or may not be a civil complaint. It is addressed to the attention of numerous individuals and entities, including former Secretary of the

Treasury Janet Yellen and Secretary of State of Vatican City Cardinal Pietro Parolin, although it is not clear if he intends to name these individuals and entities as Defendants. Plaintiff asserts no explicit claims for relief, although his rambling and incoherent filings appear to reference some type of fiduciary breach, “fraudulent hypothecation” and “rightful reclamation of estate and hereditaments.” He also references purported Uniform Commercial Code documents, and his documents

otherwise contain hallmarks of the sovereign citizen movement, including red fingerprints. Plaintiff’s complaint is incomprehensible and replete with “the legal-sounding but meaningless verbiage commonly used by adherents to the so-called sovereign citizen movement.” See Sealey v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., Case No.: 2:17cv785- MHT-SMD, 2019 WL 1434065, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 21, 2019). The arguments and legal theories espoused by sovereign citizens have been consistently rejected as

“utterly frivolous, patently ludicrous, and a waste of . . . the court’s time, which is being paid by hard-earned tax dollars.” See Young v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 3:16cv298/RV/EMT, 2018 WL 1251920, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018) (citing Roach v. Arrisi, No. 8:15-cv-2547-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 8943290, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2016)). Consequently, this case is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. Plaintiff is warned that if he continues to file frivolous cases in this Court, he may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), including monetary sanctions or injunctive relief directing the Clerk to not accept future filings by Plaintiff without first obtaining prior leave of the Court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of June, 2025.

TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3