United States District Court, D. Delaware
plaintiff, Nycere Ezikiel Bey ("Bey"), commenced
this action on February 15, 2017. (D.I. 1.) He appears
pro se and was granted permission to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I.
5.) The court proceeds to review and screen the complaint
pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
filed several documents when he commenced this case
including: (1) a notice of tort claim and opportunity to
cure, naming the tortfeasor as the United States of
America/City of White Plains and referring to an ongoing
injury; (2) an affidavit in support of tort signed by Ali
Anu-El ("Anu-El); (3) an obligation signed by Anu-El;
(4) certificate of non-response and opportunity to cure; (5)
negative averment signed by Anu-El; (6) notice of lien; and
(7) affidavit of notice of default. It is not entirely clear,
but the negative averment seems to state that either
Anu-El's or William Cornell Armstrong, Jr.'s
("Armstrong") constitutional rights were violated
by police officers/detectives in the City of White Plains,
New York in October 2003. The obligation refers to a
pre-settlement offer (i. e., demand) in the
sum of fifty million doller. It seems that when there was no
response to the demand, Bey deemed this as a default
judgment. Bey also filed a motion for summary judgment. (D.I.
3.) However, the motion refers to debtor Curtis Lamarr
Flanagan, not Armstrong.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The
court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro
se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Bey proceeds
pro se, his pleading is liberally construed
and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill,
878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint
or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the court must grant Bey leave to amend his
complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile.
See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
114 (3d Cir. 2002).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See
Johnson v. City of Shelby, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct.
346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for
imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim
asserted. See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and
(3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Elements are sufficiently alleged when the facts in the
complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to
relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
documents identify Bey as having a limited power of attorney
for Anu-El, and Anu-El as a secured party/creditor of debtor
Armstrong. Bey states that says the defendants have violated
several provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, admiralty
law, and the Constitution, all of which, it appears, happened
in 2003. Bey states that the United States is a corporation
and the City of White Plains is a sub-corporation under the
United States, its parent corporation.
allegations in the complaint are both legally and factually
frivolous. As pled, there is no legal basis for Bey's
claims. Indeed, the allegations are conclusory,
somewhat delusional, and in the court's experience and
common sense, lead it to recognize that the complaint does
not state a plausible claim for relief. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
above reasons, the court will: (1) deny as moot the motion
for summary judgment (D.I. 3); and (2) dismiss the complaint
as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ...