United States District Court, D. Maryland
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge
January 29, 2018, this Court granted self-represeneed
Plaintiff Cleveland Winston Kilgore-Bey twenty-one days to
supplement the Complaint with facts to include evidence that
he has obtained a copyright on his name and an explanation as
to how Defendants used his name for wrongful purposes.
Kilgore-Bey was cautioned that if he failed to comply, the
Complaint would be dismissed without further notice from this
Court. For reasons to follow, the Complaint is also subject
to dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state claim upon
which relief may be granted.
was convicted by a jury of bank fraud, aggravated identity
theft, and aiding and abetting in United States of
America v. Cleveland Kilgore, Criminal Action No.
RBD-06-115 (D Md. 2006). On December 19, 2006, this Court
sentenced Kilgore to 149 months incarceration to be followed
by five (5) years of supervised release and ordered him to
pay restitution of $268, 930 with an assessment of $800.
Court takes note that in Kilgore-Bey v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, et al, Civil Action No. RDB-17-1751 (D. Md.
2017), Kilgore-Bey asserted that he was released 'into
society" on June 26, 2017, (ECF No. 1 at 2), so it is
likely that Kilgore-Bey is complaining here about the terms
of his supervised release. The crux of Kilgore-Bey's
complaint now under review is that he objects to drug testing
at the Renaissance Treatment Center, limits on his travel,
and the requirement that he sign his name to unspecified
documents, all of which seem to be related to the terms of
his supervised release. Kilgore-Bey claims Defendants have
committed copyright infringement violated his intellectual
property rights, and defamed his character. (ECF No. 1). He
is seeking a total of $6.5 million in damages. (ECF No. 1).
supplement which he filed as a Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Pleadings (ECF No.5), Kilgore-Bey reiterates the
allegations in the Complaint and claims that Defendants
required him to sign "contracts" in violation of
his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution. (ECF No.5 at 3). Kilgore-Bey also filed
thirty-one pages of UCC financing documents, a purported
notice of copyright, and documents irrelevant to this case.
(ECF No. 5-1).
claims that Defendants "deceived" him into signing
contracts in violation of his constitutional, liberty, and
intellectual property rights are conclusory and lack any
supporting facts. Instead, Kilgore-Bey refers to a security
agreement he filed with the Maryland Department of Assessment
and Taxation. (ECF No.5 at 3, ECF No. 5-1 at 1-19).
Kilgore-Bey does not explain, nor is it apparent, how this
security agreement is germane to the Complaint or evidences a
violation of federal or constitutional law.
filed this Complaint in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), which permits an indigent litigant to
commence an action in this Court without prepaying the filing
fee, and was granted leave to procced in forma pauperis. (ECF
No.4). To guard against possible abuses of this privilege,
the statute requires dismissal of any claim that is frivolous
or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). This Court also is mindful of its
obligation to liberally construe self-represented pleadings,
such as the instant Complaint. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating such a
Complaint, the factual allegations are assumed to be true.
Id. at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Nonetheless,
liberal construction does not mean that this Court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set
forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th
Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not Conjure up
questions never squarely presented."). In making this
determination. "[t]he district court need not look
beyond the complaint's allegations .... It must hold the
pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint
liberally." While v. While, 886 F.2d 721,
722-23 (4th Cir. 1989). A complaint fails to state a claim
when viewing the factual allegations in the complaint as true
and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
complaint fails to contain enough facts to state a claim that
is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
frivolous action is one that "lacks an arguable basis in
either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In making a frivolousness
determination, judges not only have "the authority to
dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complain''s factual allegations and dismiss those
claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless."
Id. at 327. Thus, unlike the failure to state a
claim standard, in determining frivolity, the court is not
bound to accept "clearly baseless" factual
allegations as true. See Den/on v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992). This Court deems the Complaint subject to
dismissal under both standards.
Complaint and his cases previously in this
District echo the "flesh and blood" or
"sovereign man" philosophy. See e.g. See United
States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602, 603-06 (D. Md.
2005) (describing the theory, its sources, and its
anti-government movement predecessors). "Sovereign
citizens are a loosely affiliated group who believe that the
state and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy
and therefore have no authority to regulate their
behavior." See Parker v. Spencer, 2015 WL
3870277, *3 (D.S.C.) (quoting United States v.
Ulloa, 511 Fed.Appx. 105, 106 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013)). To
the extent Kilgore asserts his compliance with the terms of
his supervision violate his constitutional rights or
copyright or intellectual property law, his allegations are
conclusory and factually unsupported.
Complaint fails state a plausible, non-frivolous § 1983
claim. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A and Kilgore will be assigned a second
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Kilgore v. Warden, Civil Action No. RDB-12-1101 (D. Md.
2012) (assigning a "first strike" pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Section 1915(g) provides that a
prisoner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis if on
three or more prior occasions, the prisoner has filed an
action in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of physical injury See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice
as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and for failure to comply with court order
This Court shall assign a second strike under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g) to Kilgore-Bey. A separate Order follows.