Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amaru Mura Hassan Bey v. State of Ohio

October 17, 2011

AMARU MURA HASSAN BEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Patricia A. Gaughan

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Amaru Maru Hassan Bey filed this action under the Zodiac Constitution, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the International Religious Freedom Act, the "Rights of Indigenous People," the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1836, 18 U.S.C. §§241, 242, 872, 876, 1001, 1091, 1201, 1341, 1621, and 1959, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the Ohio Constitution. He names as Defendants the State of Ohio, the City of Warrensville Heights, Bedford Municipal Court Judge Brian Melling, Bedford Municipal Court Magistrate Nicolas Papa, Bedford Municipal Court Prosecutor Deborah Turner, Bedford Municipal Court Bailiff James Defabio, Bedford Municipal Court Clerk Thomas Day, and Warrensville Heights Patrolman Michael Turner. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts he was unfairly brought to court on traffic charges. He seeks enforcement of the "Divine Constitution and By-Laws of the Moorish Science Temple of America," the United States Constitution, and the Treaty of Friendship and Peace. He requests that all unconstitutional orders and actions be dismissed and expunged from his record, that the Defendants be criminally charged, and that he be awarded monetary damages from each of the Defendants.

Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff includes very few factual allegations in his Complaint. He attaches a traffic ticket to his pleading that provides some limited information. The ticket indicates Plaintiff was stopped by Officer Turner on Harvard Road in Warrensville Heights, Ohio on February 12, 2011 and issued a traffic citation for running a red light. Although the ticket suggests that a personal appearance could be waived, Plaintiff appeared in Court on March 9, 2011.

At this point, Plaintiff's Complaint becomes difficult to decipher. He states he appeared with counsel and then asserts the Magistrate violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10 and ¶ 15. He apparently had difficulty entering a plea, because he indicates the Magistrate stated, "I only want to hear you say guilty, not guilty or no contest." ECF No. 1 at ¶ 11. He was then charged with contempt of court and possibly fined. He contends the Court Clerk would not accept payment in gold or silver which he claims is required by the United States Constitution for payment of debts. Plaintiff asserts the bailiff falsely arrested him, failed to read him his Miranda rights in the presence of his counsel and otherwise violated his civil rights. He states that a false arrest is the equivalent of assault and battery. He indicates he presented Prosecutor Deborah Turner with a Writ of Discovery/Affidavit which she failed to honor. He claims this writ challenged jurisdiction and her failure to reply constitutes a default in judgment and a violation of due process.

Plaintiff generally asserts 16 claims for relief. These include violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (conspiracy to deny civil rights), 242 (deprivation of civil rights), 872 (extortion), 1001 (fraud and false statements), 1201 (kidnaping), 1341 (mail fraud), 1621 (perjury), and 1959 (RICO), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, dereliction of duty, Universal Declaration of Human Rights violations, violation of the oath of office, assault and battery, creation of ex post facto laws, and violation of the Ohio Constitution.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.*fn1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks "plausibility in the Complaint." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).

A pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than "an unadorned, the-[D]efendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).

ANALYSIS

I. No Private Right of Action

As an initial matter, the majority of Plaintiff's claims rest on authority which is not recognized by this federal court, or which does not provide a private cause of action in a civil case. He relies on the Zodiac Constitution and the by-laws of the Moorish Science Temple. While these documents may be of great personal importance to the Plaintiff, they are not recognized by federal courts as binding legal authority. See Asim El v. Riverside Maintentance Corp., No. 95 Civ. 1204, 1998 WL 205304, at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 1998); Bey v. Philadelphia Passport Agency-M, Civ. A. No. 86-4906, 1986 WL 559, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 30, 1986). Article III of the United States Constitution provides this Court with federal question jurisdiction to hear claims that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.