Opinion
1:21-cv-298
03-28-2022
MANNY ELLIS, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that Plaintiffs “Motion for Redress of Grievance/Arbitration” [ECF No. 8] be denied and that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Report
A. Legal standards '
Because he has sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 3, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Among other things, that statute requires the Court to dismiss any action in which the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 796-97 (3d Cir. 2015). A frivolous complaint is one which is either based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory (such as when a defendant enjoys immunity from suit) or based upon factual contentions which are clearly baseless (such as when the factual scenario described is fanciful or delusional). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The determination as to whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)). .
B. Background and Analysis
On October 28, 2021, Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, initiated this action by filing a document styled a “Petition for Redress of Grievance, Receiving the Bonds in the Name of the Trust, & Arbitration (Tort 42 U.S.C. § 1983).” ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filing was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff later filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 5.
The allegations in the “Petition” were largely incoherent. Plaintiff began by noting that he is a “diving, living, flesh & blood human being, created by Almighty God, ” and has “never nor will I be a corporation.” Id. at 5. He asserted that a corporation “is an artificial person (STRAW MAN) or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state” and that state penal codes “hold[] the real man liable for the conduct of his commercial PERSON in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (STRAW MAN), HENCE all crimes are commercial.” Id. at 6. Because “a person can not be a corporation, ” Plaintiff posited that only a person's “corporate entity” can be charged with a crime, not the “flesh & blood human being.” Id. Plaintiff further stated:
This proves that in order to be appointed an attorney or to even hire one, one must be made into a corporation, the STRAW MAN. They will not aid in the “discharge” of the commercial charges that is laid upon the . corporate fiction/entity, MANNY ELLIS, or ELLIS, MANNY. This means on the complaint, information, or indictment is not me. In order to make the divine, living, flesh & blood human being a corporation or the STRAW MAN the court has to take bonds out in my name without my consent, or knowledge. Fraud was committed. .Id. at 7. Plaintiff concluded, based on the foregoing, that the state only has the authority to incarcerate his straw man alter-ego, a “fiction ... made up to do transactions, ” rather than his “flesh & blood” human form. Id. at 7-8. By way of relief, Petitioner sought $5,000,000,000.00 in damages, his release from prison, and to have his record cleared of all charges. Id. at 8.
On March 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 7] in which it observed that Plaintiffs claims were largely incoherent and entirely frivolous. As explained in that Order:
Plaintiffs argument, to the extent that it is coherent, invokes the ideologies of the so-called “flesh and blood” movement. As described in a recent decision in the Middle District of Pennsylvania rejecting similar claims, Plaintiff “parrots the language of the now infamous ‘flesh and blood' movement, similar to the beliefs and rhetoric espoused by the American Moorish and Sovereign Citizen movements.” Urgent v. Dennis Urgent(c)TM, 2020 WL 5489194, at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 18, 2020) (quoting Weese v. Maryland, 2017 WL 8780880, at *1 (D. Md. Dec. 8, 2017)). Adherents to the “flesh and blood” movement believe that a person has “two distinct versions of himself, a ‘flesh-and-blood' natural man and a legal person-the vessel.” Id. at *4. See also Monroe v. . Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n. 4 (noting that “flesh and blood” advocates believe “that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the ‘strawman.'”). They theorize that the government “has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains. free.” Id. Therefore, “the real person can demand that government officials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's name or, in the case of prisoners, to keep him in custody.” Id. Courts have routinely dismissed nonsensical claims of this nature as patently frivolous. See, e.g., id. at *4 (noting that “flesh and blood” claims “have been uniformly rejected as legally frivolous by this and other Courts across the country”); Smithson v. Koons, 2017 WL 3016165, at *1 n.l (M.D. Pa. June 26, 2017) (describing similar strawman and contract-based claims and recommending that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Tirado v. New Jersey, 2011 WL 1256624, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2011) (characterizing “strawman” claims as a “delusory contrivance” with “absolutely no legal basis”); Ferguson-El v. Virginia, 2011 WL 3652327, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2011) . (“Ferguson-El seeks to avoid the consequences of his criminal conviction by suggesting he exists as two separate legal entities and that the State of Virginia does not have jurisdiction over both entities and . thus must release him, “the living breathing Man” ... and pay him damages. Such a theory is legally frivolous.”); Muhammad v. Smith,
2014 WL 3670609, at *2-3 (N.D. N.Y. July 23, 2014) (same). See also Weese, 2017 WL 8780880, at *2 (collecting cases).ECF No. 7 at 2-3. Rather than recommend dismissal at that time, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his pleading, if he so desired, within thirty days of that Order. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that, if a civil rights complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the Court should permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that the filing of an amended pleading simply restating the same “straw man” arguments set forth in his original complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, as legally frivolous.
On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant “Motion for Redress of Grievance/Arbitration.” ECF No. 10. Rather than correcting the deficiencies in his original pleading, Plaintiffs latest filing simply regurgitates the same “straw man” arguments that he raised in his original petition. As the Court has already explained, these claims are utterly without merit and “have been uniformly rejected as legally frivolous by this and other Courts across the country.” Monroe, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n. 4. The same result is warranted here.
Peculiarly, Plaintiff s filing refers to the undersigned's “Report and Recommendation” on several occasions, despite that nd R&R has ever been issued in this case. This oddity' is perhaps explained by the fact that Plaintiffs “motion” appears to be identical in every respect to the “objections” filed by several other inmates in the other “straw man” .cases filed in this Court. See, e.g., Smith v. Warden SCI Forest, No. 1:21-cv-234 (W.D. Pa. 2021); Thomas v, PA Attorney General, No. 1:21-cv-235 (W.D. Pa. 2021); Nunez v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 1:21-cv-240 (W.D. Pa. 2021). .
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs “Motion for Redress of Grievance/Arbitration” [ECF No. 8] be denied and that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).