Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El v. Payne

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

July 28, 2017

ROBERT E. PAYNE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Civil Action)


         Metaphyzic El-ectromagnetic Supreme-El, a Virginia inmate proceeding/vo se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action. The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.


         Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory" or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clay v. Yates, 809 F.Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

         "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Parly of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell All. Corp. v. T\vombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Ail. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it will not act as the inmate's advocate and develop, sua sponte, statutory and constitutional claims that the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).


         In his Complaint, which is composed of several documents, Supreme-El has named United States District Judge Robert E. Payne as the sole Defendant. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.)[1] Supreme-El contends that Judge Payne has "fail[ed] to rebut the claims of him violating the United States Constitution, laws, and treaties, which he is obligated to enforce by law; as addressed in the attached commercial affidavit." (Id.) According to Supreme-El, Judge Payne has committed various federal and state criminal offenses, including conspiring against Supreme-El's rights, perjuring his oath, treason, obstruction of justice, fraud, and "resisting or obstructing execution of legal process." (Id. at 7.) Supreme-El also asserts that Judge Payne has violated, inter alia, the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Treaty, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787/1836 between Morocco and the United States, and the Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution. (Id. at 8-9.) Supreme-El raises the following claims against Judge Payne:

Claim One: "On or about March 3, 2015 [Judge Payne] accepted and adopted U.S. Magistrate Roderick C. Young's false statements as true, which was shown to be false and unlawful by the Complainant Affiant, Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El, and caused the continued unlawful detention of the Complainant Affiant, depriving him of rights under color of law by denying due process which entitled [him] to relief by habeas corpus[.] By the Defendant/Respondent, Robert E. Payne accepting and adopting U.S. Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young's false statements in his Report and Recommendation as true he conspired to deny the Complainant Affiant relief by not granting the writ of habeas corpus as required bylaw." (Id. at 10.)[2]
Claim Two: By U.S. Senior Judge Robert E. Payne not enforcing the U.S. Constitution, laws, and treaties in the matter of the Complainant Affiant he (Respondent) committed treason, perjury of oath, and felony misprision." (Id. at 11.)

Claim Three: "On or about July 21st, 2015, the Respondent Robert E. Payne fully and willfully ignored proper notices in which he was given (30) thirty days to respond by rebutting the claims therein (Complainant Affiant's Commercial Affidavit and Notice of Commercial Grace attached) of a crime taking place compounding the crimes, by (i.e. knowingly, willfully and intentionally neglecting to enforce the U.S. Constitution, laws, and treaties and denying the Complainant Affiant's lawful writ [of] habeas corpus)[.] Such actions caused a continuation of unlawful imprisonment. ... By such actions displayed by the Respondent Robert E. Payne, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young and agents of the Virginia Attorney General's Office, a criminal conspiracy is established of sedition, treason, fraud, perjury of oath and deprivation of rights." (Id. at 11-12.) Supreme-El seeks $515, 000.00 in state damages and $2, 950, 000.00 in federal damages. (Id. at 13.)

         III. ANALYSIS

         It is both unnecessary and inappropriate to engage in an extended discussion of the utter lack of merit of Supreme-El's theories for relief. See Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996) (emphasizing that "abbreviated treatment" is consistent with Congress's vision for the disposition of frivolous or "insubstantial claims" (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). As discussed below, Supreme-El's claims are unsubstantial and frivolous for several reasons.

         A. Supreme-El's Claims Lack Merit

         1. ...

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.