Summary
describing the civil action brought by a Moorish prisoner as "frivolous because the claims are based on a 'sovereign citizen' theory, which is an indisputably meritless legal theory"
Summary of this case from English v. United StatesOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-12671 SECTION "M"(4)
10-01-2019
CORNELIUS PAUL BARTHELEMY-BEY v. STATE OF LOUISIANA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, and to submit proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), § 1915, and § 1915A, and as applicable, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) and (2). Upon review of the record, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an evidentiary hearing.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Cornelius Paul Barthelemy-Bey, is a convicted inmate housed in the Allen Correctional Center ("ACC") in Kinder, Louisiana. Berthelemy-Bey filed this pro se and in forma pauperis complaint against the State of Louisiana alleging that, as an incarcerated state prisoner, he is a "black political hostage" who has been "kidnapped," subjected to "involuntary servitude," and treated as "chattel property" in contravention of his rights as an "African Moor," which is his "true nationality." He seeks monetary damages and restoration of his nationality.
Rec. Doc. No. 1.
Id.
II. Standards for Frivolousness Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the Court is required to sua sponte dismiss cases filed by prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis upon a determination that they are frivolous. The Court has broad discretion in determining the frivolous nature of the complaint. See Cay v. Estelle, 789 F.2d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 1986), modified on other grounds, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993). However, the Court may not sua sponte dismiss an action merely because of questionable legal theories or unlikely factual allegations in the complaint.
Under this statute, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998). "A [claim] lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998)). It lacks an arguable factual basis only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," a category encompassing fanciful, fantastic, and delusional allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). Therefore, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff's claims are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or clearly baseless factual allegations. Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 269 (5th Cir. 1992).
III. Discussion
Berthelemy-Bey has improperly named the State of Louisiana as the sole defendant in this case. However, the Eleventh Amendment forbids federal courts from entertaining a suit for monetary damages brought by a citizen against his own State. Pennhurst St. Sch. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98 (1984); Voisin's Oyster House, Inc. v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1986). A state may expressly waive this Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53-54 (1996); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974) (holding that a state's consent to suit against it in federal court must be expressed "unequivocally"); Welch v. Dep't of Highways, 780 F.2d 1268, 1271-73 (5th Cir. 1986). The State of Louisiana has not done so.
To the contrary, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:5106(a) provides that "[n]o suit against the state or a state agency ... shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court." Without a waiver, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear Barthelemy-Bey's claims for monetary relief against the State of Louisiana. See Warnock v. Pecos Cty., Tx., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996).
In addition, even beyond Eleventh Amendment immunity, Barthelemy-Bey's claims also are frivolous because the claims are based on a "sovereign citizen" theory, which is an indisputably meritless legal theory. "The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of litigants, commentators, and tax protesters who often take the position that they are not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings." United States v. Weast, 811 F.3d 742, 746 n.5 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 282-83 (Ct. Cl. 2011) (explaining the "sovereign citizen" belief system); El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F. Supp.2d 537 (D.N.J. 2011) (explaining the myth of the "Moorish Movement" and other similar fictions such as "sovereign citizens" and their motives). It has been repeatedly held that "[s]overeign-citizen legal arguments ... are indisputably meritless." Westfall v. Davis, No. 18-0023, 2018 WL 2422058, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2018), adopted, 2018 WL 2414794 (N.D. Tex. May 29, 2018); accord United States v. Austin, No. 13-CR-194, 2018 WL 6326435 (E.D. La. Dec. 12, 2018); LaVergne v. USA, No. 18-238, 2018 WL 2760336, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2018), adopted, 2018 WL 2747058 (W.D. La. June 7, 2018) ("Courts routinely dismiss sovereign citizen claims as frivolous or otherwise lacking merit."); El v. Louisiana, No. 16-2125, 2017 WL 1969552, at *3 (E.D. La. May 12, 2017); Mason v. Anderson, No. H-15-2952, 2016 WL 4398680, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016).
For these reasons, Barthelemy-Bey's complaint is asserted against an immune defendant and otherwise is frivolous and fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. His complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A.
IV. Recommendation
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Barthelemy-Bey's complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A because it has been brought against an immune defendant and otherwise is frivolous and fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996).
Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of October, 2019.
/s/ _________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE