Bey v. Nervis

Background

Kirk Bey filed a complaint against Tonia Marie Nervis. The court said Bey’s allegations appeared to arise from a California state family-law case involving the parties and certain real property. Bey alleged that, as an “Aboriginal American Moor,” he had a “birthright entitlement” to property under his “Moor Nation Trust.” He also alleged that he was not a subject of the United States and that the state family-law case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that subject matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s power to hear a type of case, and that a federal court must dismiss an action when that power is absent. The court considered the two possible jurisdictional bases identified in the opinion.

First, the court found no federal-question jurisdiction. Although Bey cited an Article VI treaty provision, a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, and the jurisdictional statute, he did not allege claims or causes of action under those provisions. The court concluded that no federal question appeared on the face of the properly pleaded complaint.

Second, the court found no diversity jurisdiction. The complaint did not allege complete diversity between the parties or satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The court noted that the state family-law setting might also raise the domestic-relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction, but it did not reach that issue because the basic requirements for diversity jurisdiction were absent.

Disposition

The court found that Bey had failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. The opinion does not resolve the underlying state family-law or property issues.