Bey v. O'Malley
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-05197
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Mansa-El Bey v. Nancy E. O’Malley, Judge Chen dismissed the amended complaint after screening found multiple legal and pleading defects.
Mansa-El Bey’s claims against the named individuals, government entities or agencies, and private companies were dismissed, and the case was closed.
What happened
Mansa-El Bey v. Nancy E. O’Malley began when Mansa-El Bey sued four individuals and later filed an amended complaint naming many individuals, government entities, agencies, and private companies. He asserted thirteen causes of action and sought damages and other relief related in part to state criminal proceedings.
The court found that Mr. Bey could not represent other people or companies, had not explained what most defendants allegedly did to injure him, and had not identified which claims applied to which defendants. The court also concluded that several cited statutes did not allow private lawsuits, other statutes did not apply, and some claims had no clear legal basis. It further noted possible barriers involving federal interference with state proceedings and challenges to state-court judgments.
Judge Chen adopted the earlier recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The court gave no further opportunity to amend, directed that judgment be entered, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Bey v. O'Malley · No. 3:19-cv-05197
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 8, 2019
Background
Mansa-El Bey filed the lawsuit against four individuals in August 2019. Magistrate Judge Beeler allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee but dismissed the original complaint during the required screening of a case filed without payment of the filing fee. The court identified several defects, including the lack of allegations against three defendants and possible immunity for another defendant. Judge Beeler allowed Mr. Bey to file an amended complaint by September 12, 2019.
Mr. Bey did not file the amended complaint by that deadline and did not object to Judge Beeler’s report and recommendation, which recommended dismissal of the original complaint. He later filed an amended complaint, and the court considered it in the interest of justice. The amended complaint named twenty individuals, four government entities or agencies, and five private companies. It asserted thirteen causes of action but did not identify which claims were brought against which defendants. Mr. Bey also purported to sue on behalf of other people and companies.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court identified multiple defects in the amended complaint:
- Because Mr. Bey was not an attorney, he could bring claims only on his own behalf, not for other people or companies. - For most defendants, he did not identify any action that allegedly injured him. - He did not connect particular causes of action to particular defendants. - Several claims relied on statutes that do not create a private cause of action, meaning they do not authorize a private person to sue under those statutes. The court gave as examples claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1503, and 1001, and 31 U.S.C. § 3302. - Other cited laws appeared inapplicable. The court noted that 10 U.S.C. § 897 concerns punishment through a court-martial, that the Sherman Act concerns antitrust violations, and that 15 U.S.C. § 6611 concerns damages for economic loss in certain Y2K actions. - The legal basis for claims labeled “invalid use of legal authority” and “grand corruption” was unclear.
The court stated that conversion and deceit were the only potentially viable causes of action, but it still could not determine which defendants were being sued for those claims or on what basis.
The amended complaint also referred to state criminal proceedings and appeared to seek relief that could affect decisions already made by state courts, including dismissal of two state criminal matters and return of personal property. The court noted that doctrines limiting federal interference with ongoing state proceedings, federal review of state-court judgments, and certain damages claims related to potentially invalid convictions or sentences could also bar the suit. The opinion did not identify one of those doctrines as the sole basis for the dismissal.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed Mr. Bey’s amended complaint in its entirety. Because he had already been given a clear opportunity to state legally sufficient claims but failed to do so, the court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. It ordered judgment and closed the case. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on October 8, 2019.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.