United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
SHERIA N. BELLE-BEY, Plaintiff,
KELVIN ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
has filed a civil suit and seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed without
payment of the filing fee. After reviewing the complaint, the
Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter, and
the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, Sheria N. Belle-Bey, filed this action on October
7, 2019, under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787
against St. Louis Superintendent of Schools Kelvin Adams, as
well as Elizabeth Bender, Associate Superintendent, and St.
Louis Public Schools and the Unnamed Insurer for St. Louis
also alleges that her lawsuit arises under Title 18 U.S.C.
§§241, 242 and the Bill of Rights and the United
Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
complaint, plaintiff states that she worked as a school
teacher for the St. Louis Public Schools at Gateway High
School sometime between 2014 and 2015. She claims she was
unlawfully terminated from her position in
2015. Plaintiff grieved her dismissal by filing
a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on
Human Rights ("MCHR) and on November 22, 2016, the MCHR
issued plaintiff a notice of right to sue.
instant action, plaintiff asserts that she was injured at her
work on October 6, 2014, when she fell off of a ladder.
Plaintiff recounts that she was also injured at school on
October 23, 2014, as well as on February 27, 2015, March 12,
2015, March 24, 2015, and April 6, 2015. She asserts injuries
to her head, back and neck as well as her hip. She alleges
that defendants are liable to her for "negligence"
as all relate to her initial fall from the ladder but were
not covered by workers compensation. Plaintiff also states
that defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to
cover her through the workers compensation
seeks in excess of $4.5 million dollars in this action.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The Court has
jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and the Court can hear cases where diversity jurisdiction
exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. From a review of
plaintiffs allegations, it does not appear that plaintiffs
complaint sets forth adequate subject matter jurisdiction.
18 of the United States Code is a criminal statute which
provides no private cause of action. Moreover, to the extent
that plaintiff is seeking the initiation of federal criminal
charges against defendants, initiation of a federal criminal
prosecution is a discretionary decision within the executive
branch and is not subject to judicial compulsion. See Ray
v. United States Dept. of Justice, 508 F.Supp. 724, 725
(E.D. Mo. 1981); 28 U.S.C. § 547(1).
request for relief, plaintiff mentions the due process clause
and the Fifth Amendment; however, the Fifth Amendment
provides for due process between the federal government and
individual citizens. The federal government is not a party to
this action, and therefore, the Fifth Amendment is not
implicated in this action.
fails to make any allegations that the "Treaty of Peace
and Friendship of 1836 A.D. Between Morocco and the United
States" provides her with a right to bring any action
against defendants. Similarly, there is no indication that
the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous
Peoples allows plaintiff jurisdiction to bring an action in
to the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege jurisdiction
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e, there is no indication that plaintiff is
bringing a discrimination in employment action within ninety
(90) days of receipt of a right to sue letter from the EEOC.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). Failure to file a
timely civil action warrants ...