The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MENES ANKH EL also known as )
WENDELL BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:22-cv-00410-TWP-TAB
)
INDIANA STATE, STATE OF INDIANA, )
COUNTY OF MARION, and CITY OF )
INDIANAPOLIS, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Menes Ankh El's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Relief
From Judgment. (Dkt. 13.) On May 12, 2022, the Court issued an Entry Dismissing Action And
Directing Entry of Final Judgment after Plaintiff failed to timely amend his complaint and show
cause why his case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. 11.) The Court entered
final judgment that same date. (Dkt. 12.) For the reasons explained below, the Motion for Relief
From Judgment is denied.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The purpose of a
Rule 59(e) motion is to have the court reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on
the merits.” Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). However, a Rule 59(e)
motion “is not a fresh opportunity to present evidence that could have been presented earlier.”
Edgewood Manor Apartment Homes, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 733 F.3d 761, 770 (7th Cir. 2013).
Instead, to receive the requested relief, the moving party “must clearly establish (1) that the court
committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry
of judgment.” Id.
Plaintiff's Motion was filed on August 25, 2022, more than 28 days after the entry of the
Judgment, so the Court interprets the Motion as a request for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b). Courts grant relief under Rule 60(b) only in exceptional circumstances. See Trade Well
International v. United Central Bank, 825 F.3d 854, 860 (7th Cir. 2016). The disposition of a Rule
60(b) motion is within the district court's discretion and is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). The rule provides that the district court may relieve
a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; voidness of the
judgment; satisfaction of the judgment; or any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the Court should alter the judgment dismissing his original
Complaint because he "could not access the PACER system to see orders or anything else done by
the Court, without paying every time [he] needed to view the Court record" and "the post office
placing [his] mail in the wrong P.O. box." (Dkt. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff then engages in a lengthy
discussion most of which is nonsensical and irrelevant to the Motion. In particular, Plaintiff
discusses the "Commercial Nature of the Action and Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act", the Dred
Scott decision, and several "Congressional Definitions, Legislation, and Limitation" acts, clauses
and statutes. Id at 3-7. He concludes his Motion with a discussion of the U.S. Senate
Congressional Record of January 9, 1905. Id. at 8.
In his Motion, Plaintiff does not explain how the Court made a manifest error of law when
it dismissed this action for failure to show cause. Nor does he articulate a basis for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b). As the Court previously explained,
In the Entry of March 8, 2022, the Court granted in forma pauperis status to
pro se Plaintiff Menes Ankh El ("Plaintiff") and screened the Complaint. The Court
explained that the Complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because of a failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted (Filing No. 5). The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
Complaint no later than April 8, 2022, and show cause why this case should not be
dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction.
The deadline to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the
show cause Order and has not filed an amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional
deficiencies of his initial Complaint. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff did not
initially receive the March 8, 2022 screening Order and Order to Show Cause;
however, the docket indicates that he received the Order from the Clerk's Office on
April 21, 2022. Plaintiff has since filed other documents with the Court, but he has
not responded to the show cause Order, has not filed an amended complaint, and has
not requested additional time to file an amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has failed
to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
(Dkt. 11.) Although Plaintiff explains that he did not wish to pay a PACER fee to view pleadings
in this case and his mail was sent to an incorrect P.O. box, Plaintiff still had a duty to monitor the
docket of his case and respond to the show cause order in a timely manner. The Court did not
make a manifest error of law in dismissing this action without prejudice. Accordingly, the Motion
for Relief From Judgment is denied.
The Court notes that on August 27, 2022, Plaintiff belatedly (and without requesting leave)
filed what appears to be an amended complaint titled Verified Claim and Complaint for Violations
of: Article 1 § 10, 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States; Through Interference in Private Commercial Affairs, Misapplication of Statutes,
Fraud on the Court, Usurpation of Jurisdiction, Breach of Fiduciary Obligations ("Amended
Complaint") (Dkt. 14). Even if the Court were to consider the amended pleading as timely filed,
the filing fails to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies of Plaintiff's initial Complaint. The Court has
attempted, but is unable to discern any viable federal claims in the Amended Complaint which
again brings claims against Indiana State, the State of Indiana, County of Marion, and the City of
Indianapolis. Plaintiff, brings his claim "in proper person, sui juris, Moorish National". (Dkt. 14
at 3). He asserts that his civil action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986,
and 1994 for violation of his constitutional rights ensured by Art. I § 10 and the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and makes claims similar to
those stated in the original Complaint.
The Court recognizes that pro se complaints such as that filed by Plaintiff are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht
v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008). However, the Amended Complaint does not
cure the deficiencies of the original Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claims. To
the extent that Plaintiff raises a claim based on the theory of "sovereign citizen" immunity as a
Moorish National, such arguments have been universally rejected by the Courts as frivolous. See
United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). An action is "'frivolous where it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.'" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting
Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). As filed, the Amended Complaint is frivolous.
A frivolous "suit does not invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court; if it is clear beyond any
reasonable doubt that a case doesn’t belong in federal court…" Carter v. Homeward Residential,
Inc., 794 F.3d 806, 807 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, the late filed
Amended Complaint also does not invoke jurisdiction of this Court and it is stricken.
Il. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to show that the Court made a manifest error of law in dismissing this
action; therefore, his Motion for Relief From Judgment, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED. In addition, the
Verified Claim and Complaint for Violations of: Article 1 § 10, 1‘, 4%, 5%, 6, 8®, 9%, 10%, 13",
and 14° Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; Through Interference in Private
Commercial Affairs, Misapplication of Statutes, Fraud on the Court, Usurpation of Jurisdiction,
Breach of Fiduciary Obligations, (Dkt. 14), is STRICKEN because it is untimely filed and the
Court lacks jurisdiction. This case remains closed.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/1/2022 A ) +
nw
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge
United States District Court
DISTRIBUTION: Southern District of Indiana
Menes Ankh El
CAP STONE LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 88045
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208