Bey v. Carillo

Background

Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil complaint against Officer Carrillo, Badge #973983; Lieutenant Bautista; NYPD Precinct #020; and the Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Division. He invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and alleged that Defendants violated his rights in connection with a traffic ticket and events occurring on December 27, 2024.

Bey alleged that Bautista and Carrillo detained him while he was traveling on West 60th Street and accused him of violating New York Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 401(1)(a) and 509(1). He argued that those provisions were a “private policy,” rather than enforceable laws. He also alleged that the Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Division was an unconstitutional private corporation and that Defendants violated various constitutional due-process protections.

Bey further alleged that using a capitalized version of his name on the ticket and related documents referred to a separate “man-of-straw” or artificial legal entity rather than to him. He accused Defendants of fraud and treason and sought money damages. He attached a document purporting to remove his state-court criminal proceedings concerning the traffic violations to federal court.

Legal standard

Because the court had allowed Bey to proceed without paying the filing fee, it was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant's filings generously, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Why the complaint was dismissed

The court characterized Bey's arguments as a common “sovereign citizen” or “redemptionist” theory. Under that theory, a person's real identity is supposedly separate from a fictional legal entity created through the person's name, particularly when the name is written in capital letters. The court stated that federal courts have consistently rejected these arguments as meritless and frivolous.

The court concluded that Bey's claims were based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

Removal of the state criminal proceedings

The court separately considered Bey's attached notice of removal. Federal law allows limited removal of state criminal proceedings, including certain prosecutions against federal officers or members of the armed forces and proceedings in which the defendant cannot enforce federal equal-civil-rights protections in state court.

The court found that Bey did not allege that he was a federal officer or armed-forces member prosecuted for actions taken in that capacity. It also found that he did not allege facts showing that he could not enforce his federal equal-rights protections in the state proceeding. The court therefore concluded that removal was improper, denied the removal request, and remanded the criminal proceeding to state court. The opinion states that Bey did not identify which state court was handling those proceedings.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, filed under the federal filing-fee-waiver statute, as frivolous. It denied the request to remove the state criminal proceedings as improper and remanded those proceedings to state court. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so permission to proceed without paying appellate fees was denied for purposes of an appeal.