United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the
Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
(Doc. No. 3), and Plaintiff's motion seeking the status
of her in forma pauperis application, (Doc. No. 4).
se Plaintiff Aneya Geannaire El-Bey, a resident of the
State of South Carolina, filed this action on October 4,
2017, naming numerous federal, state, and private individuals
and entities as Defendants. They include: New York Social
Services Agencies, University of the State of New York,
“Housing Authority, ” Social Security
Administration, City of New York Vital Records, South
Carolina Department of Vital Records, York Electric
Cooperative, “Treasury Retail Securities Submission,
” and Carolinas Health Care Systems Behavioral Health
Centers. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff seeks a
“permanent injunction” “to restore my good
name back to its proper original Authentic private citizen
status, as well as seeking to restore and protect myself and
my chidlrens economic health as well as being for future
preservation for self growth and development, conscious
awareness of self to experience, appreciate, and enjoy life
to the fullest.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff appears
to believe that the United States Government, its agencies,
and representatives, have been depriving her of funds as far
back as her high school years because it considers her a
United States citizen despite her assertions to the contrary:
I guess I can honestly say I probably became aware of the
error [when she sought money for clothes and food in high
school] and tried to reject what resulted. In error, was when
I was given an application by a United States U.S. government
agency representative, and it asked the question are you a
U.S. citizen yes or no? I said no because I honestly did not
know what that was a U.S. citizen. I could not honestly check
yes to that question so I truthfully said no. when I asked
the representative what was a U.S. citizen? I was told by the
United States U.S. government agency representative directing
me to fill out the form, that I was a U.S. citizen born in
the United States and that I was a U.S. citizen. When I
rejected and explained I was not a U.S. citizen and did not
know what that was, as I was there requesting assistance for
purchases for goods and services from the agency who promotes
assistance in support of those with no money or means to pay
in full. The way I was directed to fill out their forms left
me with no real way to take care of needs for my well being.
I was told they would not help with clothing, food, and
utilities. I would have to go to each different agency for
help and apply for assistance, get a GED for a job to earn
income and that I had to bring a birth certificate and a
social security card to get any help in assistance or
support. I was clearly being forced, as I was told I was a
U.S. citizen although I told them I was not. As I signed I
put all rights reserved, drew lines through my signature to
show my rejection on applications they said was my only
option to request support for my well being. I have been
trying for years to notify the United States government
agencies and its representatives my proper status and they
still up to now continue to ignore and deprive my children
and I unalienable right to independence, right to exist, and
survive without harm and struggle. The United States U.S.
government and its representatives not meeting their
obligations to I and my children as a natural right, leaving
us held back with no protection or economic means for proper
growth and development.
(Doc. No. 1 at 5-7).
claims that this situation has caused her stress and deprived
her of adequate money to pay her Section 8 rent, buy a home,
buy food and clothing, and care for her children. (Doc. No.1
at 9). Further, she claims to have received a letter in the
middle of September from “Social Security”
stating they will no longer give her monthly payments. (Doc.
No. 1 at 10).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the
Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is
subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is
“frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The Court must determine whether the Complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded
upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic
or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
“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). The statement of the
claim does not require specific facts; instead, it
“need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.' ” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). However,
the statement must assert more than “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
pro se complaint must be construed liberally.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see
also Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 2009)
(“Liberal construction of the pleadings is particularly
appropriate where … there is a pro se
complaint raising civil rights issues.”). However, the
liberal construction requirement will not permit a district
court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in the
complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under
federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901
F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
action will be dismissed without prejudice on initial review
for several reasons.
the Compliant is frivolous because it fails to set forth a
basis for liability against any of the named Defendants.
Plaintiff's claims that she is being denied financial
benefits because the Government erroneously considers her a
U.S. citizen, are nonsensical, conclusory and merit no
serious discussion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible....”); McLean v. United States, 566
F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of frivolous
claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so
nutty, ' ‘delusional, ' or ‘wholly
fanciful' as to be simply ‘unbelievable.'
”); Cush-El v. State, 2016 WL 1212427 at *2
(M.D. N.C. March 10, 2016) (recommending dismissal of
complaint wherein “[p]laintiff recites claims that
consist largely of incomprehensible ramblings composed of
commercial and ...