United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES, JUDGE
matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the
reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES
pro se Plaintiff Abeyomi Elmoor Bey's complaint
with leave to amend. Dkt. # 3.
January 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendant, King County Prosecutor Daniel T. Satterberg. Dkt.
# 1. Plaintiff appears to be challenging a complaint in a
criminal matter in the King County District Court. Dkt. # 3
at 7. Plaintiff also submitted an application to proceed
in forma pauperis. Dkt. # 1. The Honorable James P.
Donohue granted the application. Dkt. # 2.
Court's authority to grant in forma pauperis
status derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is
required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
plaintiff's case if the Court determines that “the
action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis
complaints, not just those filed by prisoners.”). A
complaint is frivolous if it lacks a basis in law or fact.
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2005). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
parallels that used when ruling on dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Day v.
Florida, No. 14-378-RSM, 2014 WL 1412302, at *4 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 10, 2014) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d at
1129). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint
for failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must point to factual
allegations that “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). Where a plaintiff
proceeds pro se, the court must construe the
plaintiff's complaint liberally. Johnson v. Lucent
Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1011 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).
proceeding further with this matter, the court is obligated
to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.
Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 657
F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3)
(“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”). Absent jurisdiction, any determination on
the merits would be void. Watts v. Pickney, 757 F.2d
406, 409 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff attaches what appears to
be state court records as exhibits to his Complaint,
including the referenced state court complaint, an affidavit,
and a notice of removal. Dkt. # 3. While it is unclear
whether the criminal matter referenced in the Complaint is
ongoing, to the extent that it is, this Court has no
jurisdiction over that matter.
extent that Plaintiff is attempting to remove that matter to
this Court, he provides no basis for removal. Dkt. # 3 Ex. 2.
Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. §
1441, which in relevant part states that “any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be
removed by the defendant or defendants.” Original
jurisdiction may be based on diversity or the existence of a
federal question, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1332. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over
all civil actions between citizens of different states where
the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of
interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff makes no
allegations that support a finding of federal question
jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.
assuming that the Court did have jurisdiction over this
matter, and taking all allegations in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, the Complaint fails to state a
claim showing that he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff
appears to be disputing his state charges of Driving While
License Suspended/Revoked In The Third Degree and Refusal To
Give Information/Cooperate With Officer. Dkt. # 3 at 7.
Plaintiff cites to several state law cases, the Constitution,
and international law, but provides no further detail as to
how any of these laws are relevant to his claim or how
Defendant violated any rights related to these laws. Dkt. #
3. He also alleges that he is not subject to the laws of the
United States and is subject only to the “Divine
Constitution and By-Laws of the Moorish Science Temple of
America.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that his due
process rights have been violated, but none of his
allegations establish how Defendant violated these rights.
Taking these allegations as true and construing them
liberally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint
is frivolous and fails to state a valid claim for relief.
reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiff's Complaint. Dkt. # 3. Within fourteen
(14) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies
addressed above. If Plaintiff does not file an amended
complaint within that timeframe, or if Plaintiff files an
amended complaint that does not state a ...