Rodney-Tyree-Hicks-Bey/R.T. & Shantae Hicks Bey Estate v. Goodstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RODNEY TYREE HICKS-BEY 2:23-CV-10771-TGB-EAS and SHANTAE HICKS-BEY ESTATE, ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs, APPLICATION TO PROCEED vs. IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT PETER GOODSTEIN, et al., Defendants. Rodney Tyree Hicks-Bey, an individual without a lawyer, has filed a complaint, asserting a variety of claims against the Genesee County Treasurer, her administrative assistants, and a municipal lawyer arising from state-court tax foreclosure proceedings brought against him and his property. ECF No. 1. Hicks-Bey has also filed an application to proceed as a pauper. ECF No. 2. The case is before the Court for a review of that application and an initial screening of Hicks-Bey’s complaint. For the reasons explained below, Hicks-Bey’s application to proceed as a pauper will be GRANTED, and his complaint will be DISMISSED. I. Application to Proceed as a Pauper Hicks-Bey has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis— that is, without prepaying filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1). The affidavit accompanying the application states that Hicks-Bey has no income and not much in savings. ECF No. 2. This affidavit adequately shows that Hicks-Bey is indigent, so the Court will GRANT the application and allow his complaint to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). II. Initial Review of Complaint Once an in forma pauperis complaint has been filed, the Court must review it to ensure it is not frivolous or malicious, plausibly states a claim for relief, and does not seek monetary relief against defendants immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). The complaints of litigants without lawyers are construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, all litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3). Rule 8 does not require “detailed” factual allegations, but it “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). A complaint is considered “frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Hicks-Bey’s complaint concerns state-court tax foreclosure proceedings. ECF No. 1. It is replete with references to his status as a “Moorish American” and consists largely of cut-and-paste snippets of case law and citations to a panoply of treatises and legal documents. It names the Genesee County Treasurer, her administrative assistants, and a municipal lawyer as defendants. Id. at PageID.2-3. Hicks-Bey invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several federal criminal statutes, generally charging that the defendants “conspired to defraud [him] out of his property” and “played a role in placing [his] property under Color of Michigan State tax laws when [he is] not nor [has he] ever been property of the State of Michigan.” Id. at PageID.3-4. As relief, Hicks-Bey asks for “.9999 bullion gold or silver for each of my rights violated and each individual criminally charged [for] their participation in these acts of [treason] against the Constitution.” Id. at PageID.5. Any argument that Hicks-Bey is sovereign and beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Michigan or the United States is frivolous. See United States v. Amir, 644 F. App’x 398, 399 (6th Cir. 2016) (rejecting criminal defendant’s attempts “to argue that he is not a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the ‘Republic of Ohio,’ to whom our federal courts’ jurisdiction does not apply”); see also Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 559-60 (7th Cir. 2017) (noting that courts have repeatedly rejected arguments that individuals of alleged Moorish origin cannot be subject to state taxes in the absence of a contract); McCormack v. Hollenbach, No. 3:18-CV-P617-RGJ, 2019 WL 360522 , at *2 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2019) (“Sovereign citizen arguments are recognized as frivolous and a waste of court resources.” (internal quotations omitted)). His complaint contains no other facts about the foreclosure proceedings he attempts to challenge. Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of authority to hear “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments,” such as the state-court tax foreclosure judgment Hicks-Bey appears to complain of here. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). And Hicks-Bey cannot assert a private right of action under the federal criminal statutes he lists in his complaint. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”) III. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, Hicks-Bey’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. His complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B). IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of May, 2023. BY THE COURT: /s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG United States District Judge