Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terrence Richardson v. Ryan Aument

September 15, 2011

TERRENCE RICHARDSON, PLAINTIFF
v.
RYAN AUMENT, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

[ECF No. 18]

OPINION

KELLY, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Terrence Richardson is prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institute -- Forest ("SCI Forest"). He commenced this action against Defendant Ryan P. Aument, who serves as the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges violations of his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of United States Constitution as well 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Earlier this year, Plaintiff withdrew his Section 1981 claim, and appears to proceed forward pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 25]. Pending before the Court is Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff‟s Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6), or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue ("Motion to Dismiss"). As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B), the Court has screened the instant Complaint and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.

I.IN FORMA PAUPERIS PROCEEDINGS

By Order dated July 26, 2010, Plaintiff‟s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") was granted with respect to the present action. [ECF Doc. No. 4]. Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1915 establishes the criteria for allowing an action to proceed IFP without prepayment of costs. Section 1915(e) (as amended)*fn1 requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons who are proceeding IFP and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(emphasis added). A determination of frivolousness applies equally to cases that are factually frivolous and those that are legally frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). An action is legally frivolous if it is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory. Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir.1989). Indisputably meritless legal theories are those "in which it is ... readily apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law...." Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir.1990). "[T]he frivolousness determination is a discretionary one," and trial courts "are in the best position" to determine when a complaint is appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

In reviewing complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a federal court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6). See, e.g., Porter v. Cancelmi, C.A. No. 04-1736, 2006 WL 3490589 (W.D. Pa. 2006), aff'd, 318 F.App‟x. 48 (3d Cir. 2008). To survive a motion to dismiss, "a plaintiff must allege facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir.2007) (citing, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)), Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff‟s Complaint purports to raise a claim that he has been harmed by the failure of the Defendant to accept for filing, and then forward to the Lancaster County District Attorney, copies of "Negotiable Instruments," "that were presented under Notary Seal causing the continued incarceration" of Plaintiff "against his will." As damages, Plaintiff seeks the "discharge of all debts, obligations, Judgments owed to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by liquidating the sum certain against Defendant‟s Bond or Insurance." [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff attempts to clarify his claim in his "motion for summary judgment" filed in response to Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss and attaches a notarized "Presentment Letter." [ECF No. 21]. This letter purports to "present" to Defendant "instruments," including his "Sentencing Order, Police Criminal Complaint, Information, Court Order from April 8th, 2010, Participant Accounting Report and Sentencing Status Summary," all arising out of his conviction for murder. [ECF No. 19-1. p. 2]. The Presentment Letter declares that these documents are:

Being Accepted for Value and Returned for Value, and For Settlement and Closure in accord with House Joint Resolution -- 192 73-10 and 27 CFR 72-11 for Case # CP-36-CR-0002246-2004 and Account # 36-3005-P10142, To Satisfy All Debts/Obligations/Judgments owed to The COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by TERRENCE TERRELL RICHARDSON." [ECF No. 21, p.7]. The "Presentment Letter" directs the Defendant to file the "instruments" and forward them to the District Attorney within 3 days and that if a time stamped copy of the "instruments" is not returned within 3 days, a "Certificate of Non-Response/Non-Performance" will issue. Id. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to "U.C.C. § 3-603," these "instruments," have been tendered for payment to discharge the obligations he may owe to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including, apparently, his current sentence for his conviction for murder. Plaintiff contends that the refusal of his tender operates to discharge his obligation to the Commonwealth.*fn2 Id. [ECF No. 19-1, p.2].

Not surprisingly, the Defendant did not file the documents or act upon the Presentment Letter, which the Plaintiff contends caused him to be unconstitutionally deprived of liberty, entitling him to $1.6 million dollars "for each day he has suffered from the unconstitutional deprivation of right to liberty since June 19, 2010."

This alleged nonfeasance, however, does not give rise to the violation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or law of the United States, and therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff‟s self-styled cause of action is predicated upon a manipulation of the Uniform Commercial Code‟s provisions for the tender of lawful negotiable instruments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203, fn. 4 (3d Cir. 2008), has recognized a pattern of prisoner use of the Uniform Commercial Code to fraudulently file judgments and liens and the burdens these filings are creating in the judicial system:

Further investigation revealed that various publications were advocating the exploitation of the UCC filing process and provided explicit instructions on how to perfect these fraudulent security interests, including sample financing statements forms. One instruction book, Cracking the Code, calls for the use of commercial law to resist authority, including the correctional and judicial systems. The book adheres to the "Redemptionist" theory, which propounds that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the "strawman." The "strawman" purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1993, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt. Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free. Individuals can free themselves by filing UCC financing statements, thereby acquiring an interest in their strawman. Thereafter, the real person can demand that government officials pay enormous sums of money to use the strawman's name or, in the case of prisoners, to keep him in custody. If government officials refuse, inmates are encouraged to file liens against correctional officers and other prison officials in order to extort ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.