United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MARCUS O. TATE, Plaintiff,
NATIONALIST GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGN INHABITANTS, et. al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case is before the Court on Plaintiff Marcus O.
Tate'sComplaint and Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis. (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).
action is before the Court on Tate's handwritten
complaint, submitted on February 15, 2018, and ostensibly
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (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. (Id. at 14-17, 24-25).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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.
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;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune