discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), which contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
How later courts described this case
- discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), which contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 20-20871-CIV-MORENO
SAR YAWEH EL, Moorish Federal Republic
Gov., 06143
Plaintiff,
Vs.
MIAMI DADE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR BEING FRIVOLOUS AND DENYING ALL
PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. For
the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED for being frivolous.
In his in forma pauperis complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief for “the acts of the various City
and State agents [that] fall within the definition of genocide.” He contends that these defendant
“Policy Enforcers’ are in direct violation of Nature’s God and Nature’s Law along with Article
III and VI of the Constitution of the United States of America; to include violations of the
International Peace Treaty between the Moors of North America (North West Africa) and the
United States of America, 1786-1787 (The Barbry Treaties).”
A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), which
contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). A court may dismiss claims
under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where the claims rest on an “indisputably meritless” legal theory or
are comprised of factual contentions that are “clearly baseless.” Jd. at 327. In Neitzke, the Supreme
Court provided several examples of frivolous or malicious claims. Where the defendant is clearly
immune from suit, or where the plaintiff alleges infringement of a legal interest that obviously
does not exist, then the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Jd. Claims
detailing fantastic or delusional scenarios fit into the factually baseless category. Jd. at 327-28.
The Court notes that a pro se plaintiff must be given greater leeway in pleading his or her
complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Mindful of this principle, the Court
nevertheless finds that the complaint does not state a valid federal cause of action and fails to
comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint is
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not contain “an arguable basis in law
or in fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Plaintiff details fantastic or readily delusional scenarios that
are “clearly baseless” and unintelligible, while his alleged legal theories (if any) are “indisputably
meritless.” Jd.; accord Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, after review, the Court concludes the complaint is frivolous. It is therefore
ADJUDGED that the complaint is DISMISSED, all pending motions are DENIED as
MOOT, and the case is CLOSED. on
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this fo of February 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Sar Yaweh El
649 N.W. 65 street
Miami, FL 33150
PRO SE