United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Civil Action)
E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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).
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).
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).
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
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.) 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.)
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.
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.)
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
Supreme-El's Claims Lack Merit