Moore v. Discover Bank
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Moore v. Discover Bank, Judge Swain dismissed the frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Shemar Raymond Moore’s complaint against Discover Bank was dismissed. The order also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
What happened
In Moore v. Discover Bank, Shemar Raymond Moore sued Discover Bank after sending materials claiming that his credit-card debt should be reduced to zero. He sought debt cancellation, damages, a $50,000 credit limit, and permission for “Shemar Raymond Moore” to perform for “SHEMAR RAYMOND MOORE.”
The court understood these arguments as a “redemptionist” theory claiming that differently capitalized names represent separate legal entities and that negotiable instruments could eliminate the debt. The court said federal courts consistently reject these theories as frivolous.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees, declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be cured, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Discover Bank · No. 1:24-cv-03194
- Laura Swain
- May 28, 2024
Background
Shemar Raymond Moore proceeded without a lawyer and asked to file without prepaying court fees. He alleged that he had a Discover account and that “Shemar Raymond Moore” was the “title representative” for “SHEMAR RAYMOND MOORE.” He claimed that he had authorized Discover Bank to access and use the credits of the all-capitalized name.
Moore sent mailings to Discover Bank’s chief executive officer, John Greene, asserting that the mailings and a power of attorney required Discover to apply the value of supposed negotiable instruments to his account and reduce the balance to zero. He cited several federal statutes and the Uniform Commercial Code. He sought discharge of all charges, $71,660 in damages, an order increasing his credit limit to $50,000, and an order allowing “Shemar Raymond Moore” to “perform for SHEMAR RAYMOND MOORE.”
Court’s analysis
Because Moore was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or presented claims over which the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.
The court characterized Moore’s argument as resembling a common “sovereign citizen” or “redemptionist” theory. Under that theory, a person’s name in ordinary capitalization refers to a real person while the same name in all capital letters refers to a separate fictional entity or “strawman.” The court stated that federal courts have consistently rejected these theories as frivolous and agreed with those decisions. It concluded that Moore’s claims were frivolous and without merit.
The court held that the defects could not be cured by amendment and therefore declined to give Moore permission to amend the complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed Moore’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moore permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.