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.

Bey v. Miller

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 27, 2018

TYHESHA BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE WILLIAM TODD MILLER, et al., Defendants.

          TYHESHA BEY APPEARING PRO SE

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Tyhesha Bey, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint against Defendants Judge William Todd Miller, Tina Montella, Jannette Best, and Kelly Grimes; and

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims that on July 19, 2018, Defendant Judge William Todd Miller “order with violation of paperwork to take my private property from my home, ” which was performed by John Doe police officers, and Defendants Tina Montella, Jannette Best, and Kelly Grimes; and

         WHEREAS, it appears that Plaintiff's “private property” is her daughter, and Plaintiff claims that as a result of Defendants' actions, she has suffered from harassment, kidnapping, and trespassing; and

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff states that her “child is priceless, ” but she will settle for $200 million, and she demands that “my property be returned to me until my case can be heard”; and

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees (“in forma pauperis” or “IFP” application), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of fees if she submits a proper IFP application; and

         WHEREAS, although § 1915 refers to “prisoners, ” federal courts apply § 1915 to non-prisoner IFP applications, Hickson v. Mauro, 2011 WL 6001088, *1 (D.N.J.2011) (citing Lister v. Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Section 1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not just to prisoners.”) (other citations omitted); and

         WHEREAS, the screening provisions of the IFP statute require a federal court to dismiss an action sua sponte if, among other things, the action is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to comply with the proper pleading standards, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); Martin v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2017 WL 3783702, at *1 (D.N.J. August 30, 2017) (“Federal law requires this Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and to dismiss any claim if that claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”); and

         WHEREAS, pro se complaints must be construed liberally, and all reasonable latitude must be afforded the pro se litigant, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), but pro se litigants “must still plead the essential elements of [their] claim and [are] not excused from conforming to the standard rules of civil procedure, ” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”); Sykes v. Blockbuster Video, 205 Fed.Appx. 961, 963 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding that pro se plaintiffs are expected to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); and

         WHEREAS, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint is deficient in four significant ways:

         1. Plaintiff has failed to properly state this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over her action. On the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked each of the boxes for the four bases of jurisdiction: federal question, diversity of citizenship, U.S. Government Plaintiff, and U.S. Government Defendant.

         (a) Plaintiff elaborates that the basis for federal question jurisdiction is “human rights, divine constitution and by laws (Moorish science temple) the zodiac constitution.” In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, however, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States. See U.S. Const, Art III, Section 2 (providing that federal courts can hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

         (b) If Plaintiff's case is premised on diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff has failed to plead the citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 (providing that a district court has jurisdiction over a matter based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties and ...


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.