The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge John R. Adams
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Amaru Mura Hassan Bey filed the above-captioned 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, 245, 872, 876, 1001, 1091, 1201, 1341, 1621, and 1959, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and the Ohio Constitution against the State of Ohio, the City of Shaker Heights, Shaker Heights Municipal Court, Shaker Heights Patrolman Homero Guerrero, Shaker Heights Municipal Court Judge K.J. Montgomery, Shaker Heights Municipal Court Magistrate Dan Lovinger, Shaker Heights Municipal Court Prosecutor Randy Keller, Shaker Heights Municipal Court Bailiff Joe Gogala, and Shaker Heights Municipal Court Clerk of Courts Steven Tomaszewskr. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was improperly charged and convicted of driving with expired plates. 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 filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis which the Court hereby GRANTS.
Plaintiff's Complaint is very disjointed and contains very few factual allegations. He attaches a traffic ticket to his pleading that provides some limited information. It appears he was stopped by Officer Guerrero on Lee Rd. in Shaker Heights on March 23, 2011 at 2:01 a.m. The officer issued a traffic ticket to Plaintiff for driving with expired plates. Plaintiff asserts Officer Guerrero lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop.
Although the ticket indicates that a personal appearance could be waived, Plaintiff appeared in court on April 1, 2011. He indicates he and his counsel were approached by the bailiff and asked how Plaintiff was going to plead. Plaintiff challenged his authority to request a plea. At some point, Plaintiff was arrested for some event that took place in the courtroom. Plaintiff contends several policemen were called into the courtroom to arrest him. He asserts they did not have a warrant. It appears a scuffle ensued. Plaintiff states his finger or hand was injured and required medical attention. He does not indicate why he was arrested, but he states two bonds were set and two summonses for trial were issued. Plaintiff does not indicate the result of the criminal proceedings.
The remainder of Plaintiff's Complaint is stated solely as legal rhetoric. He claims Officer Guerrero impersonated government officials on emergency business "when in fact he is a Corpora Ficta employee with no government power." ECF No. 1 at 3. He also states the officer violated his substantive right to travel. He states that the state court prosecutor failed to answer his Writ of Discovery/Affidavit of Fact, which he contends is "an automated default of judgment [in] accordance with the Foreign Judgment Act." ECF No. 1 at 4. He claims the state court magistrate supported the ticket and passed ex post facto laws. He contends the Magistrate violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment rights, issued a warrant for his arrest without an oath to support criminal charges and held him for ransom by setting excessive bail. He contends Magistrate Field enforced foreign policies and deprived him of natural rights secured by the United States Constitution. Plaintiff generally asserts 18 claims, including violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (conspiracy against civil rights), 242 (deprivation of rights), 245 (infliction of emotional distress), 872 (extortion), 876 (mailing threatening communications), 1001 (fraud and false statements), 1091 (genocide), 1201 (kidnaping), 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, violation of oath of ethics, assault and battery, creation of ex post facto laws, violation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and denial of the right to travel.
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), the 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-defendant-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).
A. No Private Right of Action
As an initial matter, the majority of Plaintiff's claims rest on authority which either is not recognized by this federal court or 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 Plaintiff, they are not recognized by United States 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 arise under the United States Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States. The Zodiac Constitution and the By-Laws of the Moorish Science Temple do not fall within these parameters.
In addition, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship and the International Religious Freedom Act do not provide a private cause of action in a civil case. See Vuaai El v. Mortgage Electronic Registry System, No. 08-14190, 2009 WL 2705819, at n.11 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2009). The Treaty of Peace and Friendship as cited by Plaintiff appears to govern relationships between Moroccan citizens and United States citizens. Although Plaintiff claims to be a descendent of the Moors, he also alleges he was born in the United States. There is no indication that he has Moroccan citizenship. Moreover, the Treaty, as cited, does not provide grounds for private parties to file civil actions. Plaintiff therefore cannot rely on the Treaty as the basis to assert claims against other United States citizens or government officials. The International Religious Freedom Act, 22 U.S.C.A. § 6401, authorizes government ...