United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by a
non-prisoner litigant, who is proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the
United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the
case initially and to submit findings and recommendations to
the United States District Judge. After careful review, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint (DE# 1) be
summarily dismissed, with
prejudice, and without issuance and service of process, for
the following reasons:
The Present Lawsuit
filed this civil action on December 1, 2017. (DE# 1). In his
Complaint, Plaintiff indicates he is a “Moorish
American National” not subject to law. (Id. at
4; see also DE# 1-2 at 1). Plaintiff is apparently
dissatisfied with state criminal proceedings against him. He
sues seven defendants: (1) South Carolina Berkeley 9th
Judicial Court; 2) the State of South Carolina; 3) Clerk of
Court Mary P. Brown; 4) Assistant Solictor Kamila
Szymcznska-Sas; 5) Magistrate Kristi Lea
Harrenton; 6) Sheriff Duane Lewis; and 7) Attorney
General Alan Wilson. Plaintiff appears to be attempting to
interfere with a pending state prosecution.
Complaint is largely nonsensical. For example, Plaintiff
COMES NOW, Demeian Pinckney Bey In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
(not to be confused with Pro se), Aboriginal Indigenous
Moorish-American; possessing Free-hold by Inheritance status;
standing squarely affirmed and bound to the Zodiac
Constitution … Being a descendant of Moroccans and
born in America, with the blood of the ancient Moabites from
the Land of Moab, who received permission from the Pharaohs
of Egypt to settle and inhabit North-West Africa / North
(DE# 1 at 2). Plaintiff inaccurately refers to South Carolina
as a foreign nation. Based on a frivolous “Moorish
Nation” theory, he contends that although he was born
the United States, he is not a United States citizen subject
to its laws. Plaintiff contends that the state court lacks
jurisdiction over him because of his “status” as
a Moorish National. Attached to the Complaint are various
pages of irrelevant materials, including a document that
Plaintiff has captioned as an “Affidavit of Prejudice,
” a document captioned as a “Petition for writ of
Certiorari, ” and a fifteen-page “Memorandum of
Law” concerning his own theory of jurisdiction and
contracts. (DE# 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3). The attached
“Petition for writ of Certiorari” consists of a
list of questions, such as the following (verbatim):
21. Is America the name of this Continent and Morocco is the
name of this courtly (sic).
22. Is Morocco the only courtly on both side of the Atlantic
23. In the year 1956 sept 15 did President Eisenhower
relinquished (sic) jurisdiction in United States Morocco; 30.
Is it true when private commercial paper is used by corporate
Government, then loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
different than a mere private corporation….
32. Is it true that Government must be willing to enter the
contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying
to get to the court to enforce its demand, called statutes.
(DE# 1-2 at 3). Plaintiff also attaches a document captioned
as an “Averment of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto”
which purports to give notice of his own jurisdictional
theory based on the “Moorish Divine and National
Movement of the World.” (DE# 1-2 at 5-6).
relief, Plaintiff demands that (verbatim):
All UNCONSTITUTIONAL Citations - Summons/Ticket - Suit /
(misrepresented) Bill of Attender: Number 2015A0810400262 /
2015A0810400263 / / 2015A0810400264, and any other
‘Order' or ‘Action' associated it /them,
to be dismissed and expunged for the record on its face and
merits; or otherwise, be brought before a legitimately
-delegated, and competent court of law of International
jurisdiction / venue.”
seeks “dismissal” and “expungement”
of various state criminal and/or traffic charges and/or
convictions. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the
State of South Carolina, the state court, and various state
officials connected with Plaintiff's most recent state
criminal case. (DE# 1 at 14-15).
Standard of Review
Initial Review for Non-Prisoner IFP
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) governs IFP filings and provides
that a district court must dismiss an action that the court
finds to be frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). A finding of frivolity can be
made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31
(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be
dismissed sua sponte “at any time” under
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). The statute “is designed
largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial
and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits.”
Id. at 326.
respect to failure to state a claim, “Rule 12(b)(6)
authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a
dispositive issue of law.” Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 326. The “complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.' ”Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although
pro se complaints are liberally construed, a
plaintiff must do more than make vague and conclusory
statements to state a claim for relief. Adams v.
Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74-75 (4th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 514 U.S. 1022 (1995). A plaintiff must allege
facts that actually support a plausible claim for relief.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Liberal Construction ...