United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Noble BernisEarl McGill El Bey, who is proceeding without
counsel in this action, has requested leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff's application
in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis makes
the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly,
the court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis
does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any
time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is
untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant.
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint
must contain more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions, ” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57
(2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the
court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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. When considering whether a
complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as
true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283
pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the
defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in
forma pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an
opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll v.
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)
superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc);
Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir.
plaintiff's complaint is legally frivolous. As best the
court can tell, plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2019, he
was pulled over and issued a citation for having temporary
paper plates on his motorcycle. Plaintiff argues he is not
required to have a California license plate because he is an
Indigenous Aboriginal Moor and California police do not have
jurisdiction over him. Plaintiff further alleges that on
September 24, 2019, he went to the California Highway Patrol
to “verify [the] Aluminum Indigenous Plates on [his]
Motorcycle, ” which he claims he has a right to display
“according to The Rights of Indigenous People.”
Plaintiff claims that the Highway Patrol told him his plates
were not valid in California. Plaintiff alleges these actions
were “clearly a Violation and Breach of
to plaintiff's complaint is the non-recognition of the
Moorish Nation as a sovereign state by the United States.
See Ingram El v. Crail, 2019 WL 3860192, at *3 (E.D.
Cal. Aug. 16, 2019) (“[T]he United States has not
recognized the sovereignty of the Moorish Nation, thus
precluding sovereign immunity claims” (quoting
Khattab El v. U.S. Justice Dep't, 1988 WL 5117,
at 5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 1988)); Benton-El v. Odom,
2007 WL 1812615, at *6 (M.D.Ga. June 19, 2007); Osiris v.
Brown, 2005 WL 2044904, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug.24, 2005);
see also We the People Beys and Els v. State of New
York, 165 F.3d 16, 1998 WL 801875, at *1 (2d Cir.
Nov.12, 1998) (unpublished opinion). Plaintiff cannot
unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself. See
United States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir.1984).
plaintiff's complaint does not allege sufficient facts
from which the court can draw a reasonable inference that
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Indeed, plaintiff does not
identify a particular right or constitutional provision that
was purportedly violated. Plaintiff claims he was told he
needed to have a valid California license plate, but those
facts, without more, do not amount to a constitutional or
legally recognizable violation. For these reasons,
plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal.
in light of plaintiff's pro se status, and because it is
at least conceivable that plaintiff could allege additional
facts to potentially state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the
court finds it appropriate to grant plaintiff an opportunity
to amend his complaint.
plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be
captioned “First Amended Complaint, ” shall be
typed or written in legible handwriting, shall address the
deficiencies outlined in this order, and shall be filed
within 28 days of this order.
is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint
or other filing in order to make plaintiffs first amended
complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended
complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves
any function in the case.
nothing in this order requires plaintiff to file a first
amended complaint. If plaintiff determines that he is unable
to amend his complaint in compliance with the court's
order at this juncture, he may alternatively file a notice of
voluntary dismissal of his claims without prejudice ...