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.

Belle-Bey v. Adams

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

October 10, 2019

SHERIA N. BELLE-BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
KELVIN ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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).

         Background

          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 Public Schools.

         Plaintiff 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.

         In her 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.[1] Plaintiff grieved her dismissal by filing a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights ("MCHR)[2] and on November 22, 2016, the MCHR issued plaintiff a notice of right to sue.

         In the 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 plan.[3]

         Plaintiff seeks in excess of $4.5 million dollars in this action.

         Discussion

         Federal 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.

         Title 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).

         In her 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.

         Plaintiff 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 this Court.[4]

         Additionally, 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. ยง 2000e-5(f). Failure to file a timely civil action warrants ...


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.