Opinion
1:10CV291.
August 16, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss (docket no. 5) by all Defendants. Also pending is a "motion to compel and dismiss Defendants' motion" (docket no. 9) by Pro se Plaintiff Noble Tornello Fontaine Pierce El-Bey ("Plaintiff"). The parties have either responded in opposition to the respective motions, or the time to do so has passed. In this posture, the matter is ripe for disposition. The parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge; therefore, the motions must be dealt with by way of recommendation. For the following reasons, it will be recommended that Defendants' motion be granted and that Plaintiff's motion be denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 191512Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319326
Plaintiff is among a group of individuals, sometimes referred to as "sovereign citizens," who claim to be immune from all state and federal laws by virtue of their supposed identities as descendants of indigenous peoples and for other equally absurd reasons. By now, the path of these litigants is well-traveled, and courts have repeatedly rejected their claims as frivolous. This is simply yet another lawsuit by one of these alleged "sovereign citizens," and it should be dismissed in short order.
DISCUSSION
In his First, Second, Third, and Fifth causes of action, Plaintiff purports to bring claims for relief arising out of various United Nations declarations and centuries-old treaties with foreign countries. As this court has noted in a previous lawsuit, Plaintiff has no right to relief under these purported declarations and treaties, and these claims should therefore be dismissed as frivolous. See El-Bey v. North Carolina Bd. of Nursing, Case No. 1:09cv753, 2009 WL 5220166 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 2009).
In his Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh causes of action, Plaintiff purports to bring claims under various federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. As to these purported claims, Plaintiff alleges in wholly conclusory fashion that: Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by engaging in an unfair and deceptive trade practice, attempted kidnaping, and "threat of extortion, collusion, coercion and obstruction of justice . . . without due process of law"; Defendants committed fraud by "intentional perversion of truth for purpose [sic] against Plaintiff to deprive [sic] of liberty and property"; Defendants committed a "false arrest and imprisonment . . . by restraining Plaintiff [sic] liberty"; and Defendants violated "TRADEMARK AND TRADE NAME/COPYRIGHT without permission from Plaintiff" of "TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL-BEY©™". All of these purported claims should be dismissed as either frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim, as none of these claims can conceivably arise from Plaintiff's factual allegations: that he was given a traffic ticket for an expired vehicle registration and for driving without an operator's license.
Ironically, persons who identify themselves as "sovereign citizens," claiming that they are not subject to state or federal or laws, routinely argue that they are at the same time protected by these very laws, particularly the U.S. Constitution.
The trademark and copyright causes of action apparently relate to the bizarre theory by persons such as Plaintiff that their given names are fictional creations and that this somehow insulates them from state and federal laws, such as laws requiring them to register their vehicles or obtain drivers' licenses. See, e.g., United States v. Delatorre, No. 03 CR 90, 2008 WL 312647, at *2 (N.D. III. Jan. 30, 2008).
Next, in his Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth causes of action, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to allege various state law claims, those claims also fail. Plaintiff's complaint purports to bring claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, trespass, and conspiracy. First, Plaintiff fails to allege any particularized allegations of fraud as required under North Carolina law. Furthermore Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing a trespass upon any of his property, or any outrageous conduct to support his emotional distress claim. Finally, the civil conspiracy claim lacks any factual basis that would even allow an inference of an agreement among Defendants to violate Plaintiff's rights.
In addition to the fact that Plaintiff simply fails to state a claim against any Defendants, the named Defendants could be dismissed for various alternative reasons, including that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant City of Greensboro. Furthermore, the "Greensboro Police Department" is not an entity capable of being sued.
In sum, Plaintiff's entire complaint is frivolous and/or fails to state a proper claim for relief, and the case should be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that in forma pauperis status be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Recommendation. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (docket no. 5) be GRANTED; that Plaintiff's motion to compel and dismiss Defendants' motion (docket no. 9) be DENIED as moot; and that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for being frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.