United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1). On August 8, 2014, the District Judge entered an Order referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge "for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate." Order (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Mot. (Doc. 2), which obligates the court to undertake review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) in non-prisoner action). That statute instructs the court to dismiss any action wherein it is determined that an in forma pauperis applicant's suit is "frivolous or 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." § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Upon review of the Complaint, the court finds that this case is due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
On August 6, 2014, proceeding " In Propria Persona Sui Juris, " and using "The Moorish National Republic" letterhead, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging, as best the court can discern, that Defendants are planning to foreclose, or have already foreclosed, unlawfully on Plaintiff's home located at 4343 Longleaf Drive, Montgomery, Alabama 36108. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 3-4. Plaintiff states,
The failure of the LENDER to give value prevents the security interest from attaching to the collateral, and therefore there is NOT an enforceable right against the Debtor, in regard to the debtors property. The mortgage company did not loan [Plaintiff] any money, gold, or silver[;] therefore[, ] they cannot attach or foreclose on property.
Id. at 4. Plaintiff also alleges that he previously mailed a "Writ in the Nature of Discovery and Disclosure" and an "Affidavit of Fact: Notice of Default Judgment" to each Defendant, neither of whom responded, and "[f]or any person to imply that the Writ in the Nature of Discovery does not have to be honored is a violation of [Plaintiff's] Constitutionally Secured Rights to Due Process of Law." Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants also violated their duty to "uphold the commercial law of contracts" by failing to honor the aforementioned documents served upon them. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' acts and omissions violate rights guaranteed to Plaintiff through the "Constitution/Treaty and laws of these United States Republic." Id. at 1.
Plaintiff seeks the following relief: that Moorish National laws be enforced; "due process"; that this court "stop these abuses of the colorable authority by the Plaintiff as it pertain to this Petitioner"; that any criminal charges found be "placed upon the Respondents"; that this court "view this Petitioner... not as a (brand) NEGRO, BLACKMAN (person), COLORED, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, or any other SLAVE TITLE"; that the United States Supreme Court "carry out their Judicial Duty in Good Faith' by ordering Plaintiff to be brought before the Law to answer for their criminal and unjust actions"; that "[a]ll UNCONSTITUTIONAL Order' or Action' associated with it / them, to be dismissed and expunged for the record on it's face and merits"; that "[a]ll Agents, State and Federal Officials, Contractors" to be "informed of the Law of the Land (Constitution) and their obligation to uphold the same"; and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 4-5.
On August 14, 2014, the court entered an Order (Doc. 6) granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and staying service of process pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Plaintiff's claims are due to be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff has failed to establish a jurisdictional basis for his claims. Plaintiff asserts "[j]urisdiction of this court is invoked under The Zodiac Constitution" and the action is brought to secure rights guaranteed "by the Constitution/Treaty and laws of these United States Republic." Compl. (Doc. 1) at 1.
... Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that a pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction. A court may find a basis for federal question jurisdiction even if a complaint lacks such a jurisdictional statement, so long as the complaint makes references to federal law sufficient to permit the court to find § 1331 jurisdiction. However, where a complaint is devoid of a single citation to a Constitutional provision, a federal statute, or a recognized theory of common law as the basis for the allegation that the ...