Brumfield v. Moore

Background

Cedric Jamal Brumfield filed the action without a lawyer while housed at James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. The defendants were identified as Dana E. Moore, a State Registrar of the California Department of Public Health Vital Records; James Greene, the Alameda County Recorder; and an unidentified physician who signed Brumfield’s birth certificate.

Brumfield alleged that he is Asiatic of Moorish descent and not Black. He claimed that the unidentified physician conspired against his rights by incorrectly and arbitrarily identifying him as Black on his birth certificate. He cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Court’s Analysis

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right secured by federal law or the Constitution was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state law. The court concluded that it was unaware of a federal right to have a person’s race correctly identified on a birth certificate, and that Brumfield had not identified a law or constitutional provision establishing such a right.

The court further held that, even assuming the physician incorrectly identified Brumfield as Black, that allegation would not violate the provisions Brumfield cited. Sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that do not create civil liability. The Ex Post Facto Clause concerns retroactive criminal punishment, which the complaint did not allege. The court said the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply because Brumfield was not challenging a law and had not alleged that state action deprived him of life, liberty, or property. The Fifteenth Amendment did not apply because the allegations did not establish denial of the right to vote based on race.

The court also noted that, for live births in California occurring on or after January 1, 1980, the state does not list the child’s race and ethnicity but lists only the race and ethnicity of the mother and father. The opinion does not state when Brumfield was born.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that amendment would be futile. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Brumfield, and close the case.