Carter-Bey, III v. Lefler
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-01406
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Carter-Bey v. Lefler, Judge Magnuson dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice after screening, finding its challenges to a valid conviction barred and frivolous.
Leon Henry Carter-Bey, III’s amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice; Herbert P. Lefler and Paul Schnell were the named defendants.
What happened
In Carter-Bey, III v. Lefler, Leon Henry Carter-Bey, III challenged his still-valid state criminal conviction through claims involving mistake, fraud, and a claim under a federal civil-rights statute. He later withdrew the civil-rights and requested-injunction claims.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. It held that the claims sought to overturn the conviction and were barred because the conviction had not been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside. The court also found Carter-Bey’s arguments about being a “Moorish American,” being only a beneficiary of a similarly named person, and needing a formal “Accusation” to be frivolous or legally invalid.
Judge Magnuson ruled that the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice after the required review. The order did not state that the conviction had been overturned or invalidated.
The detailed version
- Carter-Bey, III v. Lefler · No. 0:21-cv-01406
- Paul Magnuson
- Aug. 10, 2021
Background
Leon Henry Carter-Bey, III filed an amended complaint against Herbert P. Lefler and Paul Schnell. The complaint asserted three claims: mistake, fraud, and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Carter-Bey later stated that he was withdrawing the § 1983 and injunctive-relief claims, leaving the mistake and fraud claims.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring courts to screen certain complaints and dismiss those that fail to state a claim or are frivolous. Carter-Bey objected to that recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation and adopted it. The court held that all of Carter-Bey’s claims sought to overturn his still-valid state criminal conviction. Under Heck v. Humphrey, a federal claim seeking damages or injunctive relief that would undermine a criminal conviction generally cannot proceed unless the conviction has been reversed on appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that none of those circumstances had occurred.
The court also independently rejected Carter-Bey’s arguments as frivolous or without legal merit. It stated that courts have repeatedly rejected claims that a person is a “Moorish American” who is not subject to state or federal jurisdiction. It further rejected Carter-Bey’s contention that he was only the “beneficiary” of “LEON HENRY CARTER” and not that individual, explaining that this theory had no significance under criminal law. The court also rejected his argument that his state conviction was invalid because it was entered without a formal “Accusation.”
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court entered a judgment invalidating Carter-Bey’s conviction.
Note on the record
The opinion’s date line says only “Tuesday, August 2021.” The date used in the metadata header is the supplied filing date, August 10, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.