Bey v. Sessler
| Decision Date | 17 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:22 CV 2238 |
| Parties | SHARDAYE JEACOLE MALIK BEY, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA A. SESSLER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Pro se Plaintiff Shardaye Jeacole Malik Bey filed this action against Barbara A. Sessler, Erie County Recorder Luvada S. Wilson, Erie County Clerk of Courts; Jason Hinners Erie County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; Jan Tkach, Huron County Recorder; Susan S. Hazel, Huron County Clerk of Courts; and Jacob Stephens, Huron County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's Complaint concerns Defendants' alleged refusal to accept for filing documents Plaintiff submitted to the Recorders' and Clerks of Courts' offices in July 2022. Plaintiff seeks $160,050,000 in damages. See Doc. 1-1.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted, Plaintiff's motion is denied, and this matter is dismissed.
Plaintiff identifies herself as a citizen of the “Moorish National Republic Government North East Amexem Territories and Dominions” and claims she is a “Natural Person” and therefore “the only contract [she] consents to is the United States Constitution” and not any “statutes, rules, codes, or regulations.” See Docs. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated her right to file a grievance with the government. (Doc. 1, at 2, 4).
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff attempted to record and file a purported “Commercial Lien” with the Erie County Recorder's Office and the Huron County Recorder's Office. This document, entitled “Commercial Affidavit,” consists of disjointed and illogical statements and appears to concern a citation issued to Plaintiff by the City of Columbus Division of Parking Services on May 14, 2022. See Doc 10-1.[1] The document fails to identify any real estate to which a lien may attach. See id.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 7, 2022, Erie County Recorder Sessler refused to record and file the “Commercial Lien” on the advice of Assistant Prosecutor Hinners. (Doc. 1-1, at 2). According to Plaintiff, Hinners advised Plaintiff that based on the Ohio Revised Code, the Recorder's Office was not required to record the document. Id.
Several days later, on July 12, 2022, Plaintiff attempted to record and file the same document in Huron County.[2] See id. On the advice of Assistant Prosecutor Stephens, Huron County Recorder Tkach refused to record and file the “Commercial Lien,” explaining that the document could not be filed because it was not notarized. Id.
On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff returned to the Huron County Recorder's Office with an allegedly notarized document. Id. at 2. According to the Complaint, both Recorder Tkach and Assistant Prosecutor Stephens advised Plaintiff the document did not comply with the Ohio Revised Code and it was not an original, notarized document. Id. at 2-3. They therefore would not accept the document for recording or filing. Id.
On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff once again attempted to record and file the same “Commercial Lien” in Huron County. Id. at 3. Plaintiff advised Assistant Prosecutor Stephens that failure to record the “Commercial Lien” would be a federal crime. Id. Plaintiff presented Stephens and Tkach with an “Affidavit of Fact/Notice to Clerk/Recorder.” Id.; see also Doc. 103. Police were called and Plaintiff advised the officers they “had no jurisdiction to address [her] in any manner.” (Doc. 1-1, at 3). According to the Complaint, Stephens asked the officers to step outside. Id. Plaintiff perceived this act as “an attempt to intimidate [Plaintiff] from exercising [her] rights as a Private Citizen/In Propria Persona/Sui Juris/Sui Heredes.” Id.
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff mailed “Commercial Liens” to Defendants with money orders for the filing fees. Id.; see also Docs. 10-4 and 10-5. Defendants refused to file or record the documents. (Doc. 1-1, at 3). Erie County Clerk of Court Wilson sent a copy of the document to the Erie County Prosecutor's Office. Id. Huron County Clerk of Court Hazel also refused to file the documents, citing Ohio Code. Id. at 3-4.
Plaintiff alleges the following purported causes of action: (1) violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 2071, and 2076; (2) violation of “Title LXX”; (3) violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986; and (4) violations of the Bill of Rights (First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move for the dismissal of claims when the claimant has failed to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When deciding a motion to dismiss under this rule, the function of the Court is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993). In reviewing the complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Legal conclusions and unwarranted factual inferences, however, are not entitled to a presumption of truth. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (a court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”).
Additionally, courts must read Rule 12(b)(6) in conjunction with Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2)'s requirement that a plaintiff need offer “only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Although specific facts are not required, to meet the basic minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, a plaintiff's complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's legal claims are and the factual grounds upon which they rest. Bassett v. Nat'l Coll. Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). And the Court holds a pro se complaint to a less stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney. Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Haines, 404 U.S. at 520). The Court is not required, however, to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims on Plaintiff's behalf. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985).
Discussion[3]
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have violated numerous sections of Title 18 of the United States Code. See Doc. 1-1, at 4. She claims Sessler, Hinners, and Wilson “conspired to injure and oppress [her] by refusing to record [her] Commercial Lien. . . and by seizing [her] documents without probable cause or due process” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (). Id. She also claims all Defendants deprived her of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and “seized [her] documents without probable cause or due process” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (). Id. Plaintiff additionally claims all Defendants willfully and unlawfully concealed the documents she presented to the County Recorders' offices and the Clerks of Courts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (). Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges Hazel, Sessler, Tkach, and Wilson “willfully neglected to record” Plaintiff's “Commercial Lien” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2076 (Clerk of United States District Court). Id.
Sections 241, 242, 2071, and 2076 are all criminal statutes. Only the United States Attorney can initiate criminal charges in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 547; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c); Miller-El v. Ohio, 2022 WL 3043056, at *3 (N.D. Ohio). A private citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution. Williams v. Luttrell, 99 Fed.Appx. 705, 707 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing, inter alia, Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65 (1986)); Poole v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2014 WL 4772177, at *5 (E.D. Mich.) () (citing, inter alia, Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)).
Moreover, these statutes do not provide a private right of action in a civil case. Booth v. Henson, 290 Fed.Appx. 919, 920-21 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Oguaju, 76 Fed.Appx. 579, 581 (6th Cir. 2003); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 1994); Miller-El, 2022 WL 3043056, at *3; Doss v. Beshear, 2016 WL 2990748, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Ky.).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's allegations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 2071, and 2076 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have committed “crimes against justice” in violation of Sections 5403, 5407, and 5408 of “Title LXX.” See Doc. 1-1, at 5. In support, she claims Defendants “stole” her “Commercial Liens” and failed to record them conspired to prevent her from seeking redress from...
To continue reading
Request your trial