United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge
Green Bey, a federal pre-trial detainee presently confined in
the Dauphin County Prison, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
instituted this pro se civil rights action.
Plaintiff has also submitted an in forma pauperis
application. For the reasons set forth below, Green
Bey's action will be dismissed, without prejudice, as
legally frivolous pursuant to the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
as Defendants in the Complaint are the United States of
America; Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner of this district;
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Daryl Bloom; and
Plaintiff's court appointed criminal defense counsel,
Elisabeth Pasqualini, Esq. This is the third action filed by
Green Bey challenging the legality of his ongoing federal
criminal prosecution, United States v. Green, Case
No. 1:13-CR-210, before Chief Judge Conner.
states that his “Human Moorish body” has been
detained by the United States since November 7, 2013, without
trial. Doc. 1, ¶ IV. He asserts that his ongoing federal
criminal jurisdiction should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because he is a member of the Moorish Nation
and, as such, is entitled to protection under the 1787 treaty
between the Moorish nation and the U.S.
Government. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory,
punitive, and nominal damages, as well as injunctive relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915 imposes obligations on prisoners who
file civil actions in federal court and wish to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
e.g., that the full filing fee ultimately must be
paid (at least in a non-habeas suit). Section
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof,
that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of
poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
district court may rule that process should not be issued if
the complaint is malicious, presents an indisputably
meritless legal theory, or is predicated on clearly baseless
factual contentions. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 327-28 (1989); Douris v. Middleton Township,
293 Fed.Appx. 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008). Indisputably meritless
legal theories are those "in which either it is readily
apparent that the plaintiff's complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law or that the defendants are clearly entitled to
immunity from suit ... ." Roman v. Jeffes, 904
F.2d 192, 194 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Sultenfuss v.
Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1990)).
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
added that "the plain meaning of 'frivolous'
authorizes the dismissal of in forma pauperis claims
that . . . are of little or no weight, value, or importance,
not worthy of serious consideration, or trivial."
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d
Cir. 1995). It also has been determined that "the
frivolousness determination is a discretionary one, "
and trial courts "are in the best position" to
determine when an indigent litigant's complaint is
appropriate for summary dismissal. Denton, 504 U.S.
well-established that a prosecuting attorney is absolutely
immune from liability for damages for acts such as the
initiation of the prosecution and presentation of the
state's case which are intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process. Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976); Urrutia v.
Harrisburg County Police Dep't, 91 F.3d 451, 462 (3d
Cir. 1996). However, only qualified immunity is available to
prosecutors with regard to allegations based on their
administrative and/or investigative duties. See Hawk v.
Brosha, 590 F.Supp. 337, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1984).
to the above standards, any allegation that AUSA Bloom has
acted unlawfully with respect to Plaintiff's ongoing
federal criminal prosecution is a claim which is
"intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process." See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430.
Therefore, AUSA Bloom is absolutely immune from damages with
respect to any such malicious prosecution claim.