Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tate v. Nationalist Government Sovereign Inhabitants

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

May 25, 2018

MARCUS O. TATE, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONALIST GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGN INHABITANTS, et. al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SONJA F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Marcus O. Tate's[1]Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.[2] (Docs. 1, 11). This action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S). For the reasons set forth below, the it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, and this case be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).[3]

         I. BACKGROUND

         This action is before the Court on Tate's handwritten complaint, submitted on February 15, 2018, and ostensibly filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.[4] (Doc. 1). Tate lists as Defendants the Nationalist Government Sovereign Inhabitants, the Alabama Legislative Body, the Alabama Executive Body, the Alabama Judicial Body, the Alabama State Baptist Board and Members, and the Alabama State Poarch Band of Creek Indians. (Id. at 13-14). The complaint consists of thirty-seven (37) pages of rambling assertions, references to prior cases that have no bearing on the instant complaint, and copies of documents that only tangentially relate to Tate's claim. (Id.). A close reading and liberal construction of Tate's filing leads this Court to infer that the gist of Tate's claim is that the land on which the Poarch Band of Creek Indians occupy belongs to Tate and his relatives, who claim to be descendants of, and the rightful heirs, to the land.[5] (Id. at 14-17, 24-25).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         As a preliminary matter, the undersigned observes that when considering a pro se litigant's allegations, a court gives them a liberal construction, holding the litigant to a more lenient standard than those of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). However, a court does not have “license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010) (relying on Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). In addition, a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).

         Since Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. to § 1915 (hereafter referenced as “Section 1915”), the screening provision of Section 1915(e) is applicable.

         Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides:

         (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -

(B) the action or appeal -
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.