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.

Brown v. Commonwealth

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

December 14, 2017

DARRELL WAYNE BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge

         Darrell Wayne Brown, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this Bivens action.[1] The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set for below, the Court will dismiss the action as legally frivolous.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         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. § 1915A(b) (1) . 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).

         While the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims 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).

         II. BROWN'S COMPLAINT

         On January 25, 2017, Brown submitted this civil action. ("Complaint, " ECF No. I.)[2] Brown's Complaint consists of several sections. (See id. at 2.)

         In the first section of Brown's Complaint, he provides a "Special Notice to the Court, " wherein he notifies the Court of his "absolute ministerial right" to make a "restricted appearance" pursuant to "Rule 8(E)." (Id. at 3.) Brown then identifies himself as

a real flesh and blood man, a Commonwealth citizen and inhabitant of the County of Norfolk, Virginia, by special visitation in propria personam, not general to present this, his notice and demand for written proof (verified and demonstrated evidence) of jurisdiction over his proper person and over the subject matter in the above entitled cause as known as 2:13CR00146-001.[3]

(Id.) Brown further asserts that it is "outside the jurisdiction of any court" to determine whether a complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, (id.), and that "officers of the court have no immunity." (Id. at 4.) Brown concludes that once this Court determines that jurisdiction is "lacking in the cause in question, " he should be "assigned the minimum monetary values as pre precedent . . . [of] $25, 000.00 per 23 minute period, i.e. $65, 217.91 per hour, plus punitive damages . . . ." (Id.)

         Also attached to his Complaint is a document styled as an "International Commercial Affidavit Presented As/Under Letter Rogatory." (Id. at 5.) According to Brown, that document is filed "as 'lawful public notice'" under provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, and that "[t]he Secured Party Darrell Wayne Brown, signatory herein is executing this instrument, under signature, expressly to declare his status as a non-resident alien 'with no duress, ' in accord to the terms of the aforementioned private agreement, " nunc pro tunc to his eighteenth birthday. (Id.)

         Brown next identifies a section titled, "Identification of Moving Party" wherein he describes himself as a "natural born, free, living, breathing flesh and blood human with sentient and moral existence, a real man/woman upon the soil, a juris et du jure, also known as a Secured Party and an inhabitant, not a United States citizen." (Id. at 6.) Therefore, says Brown, he "is not a subject of, or to, the Virginia [] Constitution or the United States Constitution, its ordinances, statutes, codes or regulations . . . ." (Id.)

         In a section titled, "State [sic] of Issues, " Brown states he "tendered payment and a private administrative remedy to the named Respondent pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act . . . requesting that Case No: 2:13CR00146-001 be set off, settled and closed, and the Respondent obtained a court order for his release from custody . . . ." (Id.) Brown states he filed an Initial Financing Statement in the "commercial registry" at the Office of the New York Secretary of State and that Respondent defaulted "by his choice, " so Brown concludes that "there is no longer a controversy before the court." (Id. at 6-7.)

         Brown also includes in his papers a "Notice of Void Judgment" wherein he argues that the courts to which members ...


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.