State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey

N.D. Mississippi

State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey

DecidedJune 24, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00171

StatusUnknown

This text of State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey (State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey, (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. CAUSE NUMBER: 3:26-cv-00171-JDM-RP RICHARD AMUN’RA BEY DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The Court on its own motion remands this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 22, 2026, Defendant Richard Amun’Ra Bey filed a notice of removal. [1] But the action he removed was not a civil complaint filed in state court. Rather, it appears to be a traffic citation issued by the City of Pearl, Mississippi—a municipality outside the Northern District of Mississippi. [2] Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. And “[t]he removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.” Allen v. Bank of Am., N.A., 5 F. Supp. 3d 819, 826 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (citing Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 2001)). Amun’Ra Bey’s notice fails to allege any basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. The notice does make references to the United States Constitution—among other purported sources of law. So a very lenient construction of the pro se notice is that it alleges federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. But this Court has been clear that § 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over criminal cases. Mississippi v. Arnold, No. 4:18-cv-191-DMB-RP, 2019 WL 3381771, at *2 (N.D. Miss. July 26, 2019). And a “traffic citation prosecution . . . is undoubtedly a criminal proceeding.” Id. So this Court lacks federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331. There is also no diversity of citizenship under § 1332. Nor does 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)— which provides for removal of criminal actions under extremely limited circumstances—apply because there is no indication Amun’Ra Bey lacks the ability to enforce his rights in state court. See Arnold, 2019 WL 3381771, at *2.

The Court would add that the notice of removal does not comply with the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Not only was it filed out of time. See New York v. Bey ex rel. McDaniel, No. 24-CV-1779 (LTS), 2024 WL 2133857, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (holding that a notice of removal filed “more than 30 days after receiving the initial tickets and charge” is untimely). But it also was not “file[d] in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). This cause is hereby REMANDED. This case is CLOSED. SO ORDERED this the 24th day of June, 2026.

/s/ James D. Maxwell II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al. PLAINTIFFS V. CAUSE NUMBER: 3:26-cv-00171-JDM-RP RICHARD AMUN’RA BEY DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

The Court on its own motion remands this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 22, 2026, Defendant Richard Amun’Ra Bey filed a notice of removal. [1] But the action he removed was not a civil complaint filed in state court. Rather, it appears to be a traffic citation issued by the City of Pearl, Mississippi—a municipality outside the Northern District of Mississippi. [2] Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. And “[t]he removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.” Allen v. Bank of Am., N.A., 5 F. Supp. 3d 819, 826 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (citing Miller v. Diamond Shamrock Co., 275 F.3d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 2001)). Amun’Ra Bey’s notice fails to allege any basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. The notice does make references to the United States Constitution—among other purported sources of law. So a very lenient construction of the pro se notice is that it alleges federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. But this Court has been clear that § 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over criminal cases. Mississippi v. Arnold, No. 4:18-cv-191-DMB-RP, 2019 WL 3381771, at *2 (N.D. Miss. July 26, 2019). And a “traffic citation prosecution . . . is undoubtedly a criminal proceeding.” Id. So this Court lacks federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331. There is also no diversity of citizenship under § 1332. Nor does 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)— which provides for removal of criminal actions under extremely limited circumstances—apply because there is no indication Amun’Ra Bey lacks the ability to enforce his rights in state court. See Arnold, 2019 WL 3381771, at *2.

The Court would add that the notice of removal does not comply with the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Not only was it filed out of time. See New York v. Bey ex rel. McDaniel, No. 24-CV-1779 (LTS), 2024 WL 2133857, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2024) (holding that a notice of removal filed “more than 30 days after receiving the initial tickets and charge” is untimely). But it also was not “file[d] in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). This cause is hereby REMANDED. This case is CLOSED. SO ORDERED this the 24th day of June, 2026.

/s/ James D. Maxwell II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Mississippi, et al. v. Richard Amun’Ra Bey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-mississippi-et-al-v-richard-amunra-bey-msnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack