United States District Court, D. Maryland
J. HAZEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
above-captioned case was filed on November 9. 2018, together
with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. The
motion provides none of the required information; rather.
Plaintiff has simply indicated that all questions asking for
sources of income and expenses are not applicable.
Id. He states he is not employed, has no assets, and
"no lawful money." Id. at p. 5.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies noted, the motion shall be
granted for purposes of this case. Plaintiff is cautioned,
however, that refusal to provide any information in the
future may result in denial of leave to proceed in forma
complaint concerns Plaintiffs claims that he was illegally
stopped on two occasions on Maryland's Route 50 because
his car did not display a license plate and he was cited for
failure to have a driver's license, insurance, or
registration for his vehicle. ECF No. 1. He claims he has a
constitutional right to travel which may not be infringed by
a State's requirements for payment of licensure,
registration, or other statutory requirements for operating a
vehicle. He invokes this Court's jurisdiction "under
the Zodiac Constitution" as well as the Library of
Congress and the Treaty and laws of the United States. ECF
No. 1-2 at p. 10. He further claims that as an indigenous
person, his substantive rights may not be violated by the
State of Maryland or any other State. Id. He claims,
"[t]he right of power of locomotion; of changing
one's situation, or moving one's person to another
place one's own inclination, or restraint unless by due
course of law" is a personal property right.
Id. The documents attached to the complaint indicate
that Plaintiff is an adherent to the beliefs espoused by the
Moorish National Republic, which denounces all authority by
the States to enforce its laws against those identifying
themselves as followers. ECF No. 1-2.
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. 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 is mindful, however, 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. Twombfy, 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."
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721. 722-723 (4th Cir.
to Plaintiffs assertions otherwise, his status as a Moorish
American does not immunize him from the requirements to
comply with State law. Such assertions have been universally
rejected by the federal courts. "[S]tich organizations
as the Moorish American Nation and similar imaginary
creations ... are notorious organizations of scofflaws and
ne'er-do-wells who attempt to benefit from the
protections of federal and state law while simultaneously
proclaiming their independence from and total lack of
responsibility under those same laws." El-Bey v.
United States, 2009 WL 1019999 (M.D. N.C. Jan. 26,
2009), see also Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El v.
Dir., Dep't of Corr., 2015 WL 1138246 at *3 (E.D.
Va. Mar. 3, 2015), El v. Mayor of City of New York,
2014 WL 4954476 at *5 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30. 2014),
Maryland v. Ghazi-El, Civil Action RDB-16-0207, 2016
WL 2736183, at *2 (D. Md. May 11. 2016) (remanding state
criminal case). ''Neither the citizenship nor the
heritage of a defendant constitutes a key ingredient to a . .
.court's jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions. . .
." United States v. White, 480 Fed.Appx. 193,
194 (4th Cir. 2012).
affording the complaint a liberal construction, Plaintiff may
not raise claim impugning the legality of criminal charges
against him in a civil action while the criminal charges
remain pending. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486-87 (1994) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims impugning the
legality of criminal conviction not cognizable unless
conviction is reversed), see also Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384. 393-94 (2007) ("[I]t is within the power
of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to
stay the civil action until the criminal case or the
likelihood of a criminal case is ended."'). The
instant complaint does not, however, raise a colorable
constitutional claim given its foundation in a fictitious
legal theory based on Plaintiffs asserted alternative
citizenship theory. In the event the criminal charges against
Plaintiff are dismissed or overturned on appeal and he has
available to him a claim not founded on such a theory, he may
file his civil rights action anew.
by separate Order which follows, the Complaint shall be
dismissed without prejudice and the Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis shall be granted.
The related criminal case is
Plaintiffs attempt to remove a state court criminal traffic