Opinion
2:22-cv-01998-RFB-VCF
02-03-2023
KEVIN FISHER, d/b/a Consul Messiah El, Plaintiff, v. DAVID F. BROWN, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
CAM FERENBACH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion To Proceed Informa Pauperis (ECF No. 1); Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1-1) Pending before the Court is plaintiff's notice of removal of this action from the Las Vegas Justice Court. (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff's notice of removal is difficult to decipher because it is written in the gibberish of the “Moorish Nationals.” See ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (“I, Messiah El in Propria Persona, Sui Juris (not to be confused with Pro se) aboriginal, Indigenous Moorish American National[.]”) Plaintiff's filing identifies a Las Vegas Justice Court case that is being removed. See ECF No. 1-1 at 3 (identifying a case in Justice Court that plaintiff alleges is an “Summons/Ticket.. .Case No. 22E038599”). 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441 applies to the removal of civil cases. Plaintiff's traffic ticket proceedings appear to refer to a misdemeanor criminal case which cannot be removed to this Court. There are no federal claims in the underlying case so federal question jurisdiction does not exist. Complete diversity also does not exist since plaintiff lives in Nevada. Ordinarily I would allow a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff's notice of removal, however, is non-sensical and allowing plaintiff to amend here would only delay any traffic citation proceedings in Justice Court. Even under the liberal pleading standard, plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for removal. Based on the frivolous nature of Fisher's attempt to remove traffic citation proceedings to this Court, I recommend that this case be remanded back to the Las Vegas Justice Court. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced because he will have an opportunity to object to this report and recommendation. I deny plaintiff's application to proceed informa pauperis as moot.
This Court has previously characterized this organization and similar organizations as an imaginary creation. See Belcher-Bey v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:12-cv-01829-JAD-CWH, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35918, at 2 n.5 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2015), citing to Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc. v. New Jersey, 790 F.Supp.2d 241, 272 (D.N.J. 2011)("[S]uch organizations as the Moorish American Nation and similar imaginary creations...are notorious organization[s] of scofflaws and ne'er-do-wells who attempt to benefit from the protections of federal and state law while simultaneously proclaiming their independence from and total lack of responsibility under those same laws."(internal citations omitted)).
ACCORDINGLY, I RECOMMEND that this action [ECF No. 1-1] be REMANDED back to the Las Vegas Justice Court.
I ORDER that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party's attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.