Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Bamberg

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

September 27, 2019

GEORGE W. BAMBERG, JR., Defendant.



         Pending before the court[1] is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docs. 3 & 13) and Plaintiff's Emergency Motion (Doc. 24). The court has considered the motions, the response, if any, all other relevant filings, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion be GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion be DENIED.

         On February 28, 2019, the present lawsuit was removed to this court.[2] On March 1, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.[3] On April 3, 2019, the court found that "Plaintiff's purported complaint primarily consists of incoherent discussions of 'Moorish Americans' and is filled with a barrage of legal citations" and that Plaintiff had failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 8.[4] Accordingly, the court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with federal pleading standards.[5]

         On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed his "Affidavit of Fact Amended Complaint," which contains the same incoherent discussions of "Moorish Americans" and irrelevant legal citations as Plaintiff's amended complaint.[6] Each page contains the heading "Moorish National Republic Federal Government" and has what appears to be Plaintiff's thumb print on i~. An example of the incoherent language contained within the amended complaint can be found at the top of the first page where Plaintiff states:

"I have no money and not been paid money no one has money, and that leads to fraud platform. Under this system not allowed to have: money The Trust that's operating equals to Discharge or Set off which is unlawful to engage in anything other than, see Executive order given April 5, 1933 May 1, 1933. On November 11 2018 George W Bamberg, Jr Dora Nova Ira Quest Ira Morris, Lendais Hollrah and Snowden was give Legal Notice of my Status correction also Affidavit of Fact Writ in Nature of Discovery and Affidavit of Fact and Discovery: Writ of right."[7]

         The remainder of Plaintiff's amended complaint contains similar, incomprehensible language. On May 2, 2019, Defendant filed his pending supplemental motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, making the same arguments as in the first motion to dismiss.[8]

         On September 19, 2019, the court held a status conference.[9]At the status conference the court asked Plaintiff to explain his lawsuit. Plaintiff's attempt to explain his lawsuit was as legally-incomprehensible as his pleadings.

         On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed his pending emergency-motion.[10] Plaintiff's emergency motion contains the same references to "Moorish Americans," numerous legal citations, and confusing language similar to other plead:.ngs filed in this lawsuit. Attached to the motion is a final notice to vacate a premises that the court assumes belongs to Plaintiff.[11] The notice states that a writ of possession will be executed on the premises on September 28, 2019.[12] It appears that Plaintiff filed his emergency motion in an attempt to block the execution of the writ of possession.

         Because Plaintiff is pro se, nis allegations are entitled to a liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976)); see also Haines v. Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596 (1972) (noting that allegations in a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). Even under this lenient standard, a plaintiff must allege more than "labels and conclusions' or a 'formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

         To state a claim for which relief may be granted under the federal pleading rules "[a] complaint must be plausible on its face based on factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Whitaker v. Collier, 862 F.3d 490, 497 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff must articulate "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965).

         Rule 8 requires that a complaint have a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). From Plaintiff's amended complaint, subsequent pleadings, and emergency motion the court is unable to discern Plaintiff's factual allegations or legal arguments, and cannot draw any inference that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from Defendant. Plaintiff's pleadings fail to comply with the applicable pleading rules.

         The court has given Plaintiff multiple chances to explain the legal and factual basis of his lawsuit and Plaintiff has been unable to do so. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss should be GRANTED.

         To the extent that, through his emergency motion, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to e;njoin the execution of the writ of ...

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.