United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the two motions of
self-represented plaintiff Malak Baalim, otherwise known as
Norbert K.O. Cody II, for leave to commence this action
without prepayment of the required filing fee. Because the
Court found plaintiff's first motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) failed to comply with the
Local Rules of this Court and the federal statute under which
it may be granted, the Court directed plaintiff to file a new
motion. See ECF No. 7. Having reviewed the new
motion (ECF No. 8) and the financial information submitted in
support, the Court will grant the new motion and deny the
first motion as moot. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Furthermore, as discussed below, the Court will
dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is
frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. To state a claim
for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679.
action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The term
“frivolous, when applied to a complaint, embraces not
only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful
factual allegation.” Id. (internal quotations
omitted). While federal courts should not dismiss an action
commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are
merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an
action if the allegations in the complaint are found to be
“clearly baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are
“fanciful, ” “fantastic, ”
“delusional, ” or if they “rise to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.”
Id. at 32-33.
reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the Court accepts the well-plead facts as true,
White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984),
and liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal
construction” means that if the essence of an
allegation is discernible, the district court should construe
the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or
her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.
Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir.
2015). However, even pro se complaints are required
to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a
matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282,
1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364
F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply
additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
pro se plaintiff that assumed facts that had not
September 12, 2019, plaintiff “Malak-Baalim, ”
otherwise known as Norbert K.O. Cody II, filed a
seventy-eight-page document with the Court titled
“Notice of Tort Claim and Opportunity to Cure.”
ECF No. 1. In that document, plaintiff claims to be a
“creditor” against “Debtor[s]” United
States of America, St. Charles County, State of Missouri, St.
Charles County Municipal Court, Judge Joel David Brett, St.
Peters Police Department, and Missouri State Highway Patrol.
Id. at 1.
incredibly difficult to decipher the allegations of
plaintiff's long complaint. The complaint contains no
clear statement of facts nor a clear, valid legal authority
or theory. Plaintiff states the date of injury as
“08-15-2019, ” however the incidents he details
in his complaint range in date from February to August 2019.
The complaint begins with a one-page “Affidavit of
Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” in which
plaintiff alleges that the defendants agreed to contract
terms with him but their silence in response to
plaintiff's demands on these terms “established
irrevocable debt.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff claims he
served defendants by certified mail with his claims and
because they have not responded in ten days, his complaint
serves as a “notice of default” against them.
Plaintiff states that this is “based on gods law per
Hebrews 6:16-17” and that he has the power to issue
default under “universal principles mandated by the
maxims of commercial law; which is God's law.”
Id. Plaintiff then includes a blank page except for
the title: “Notice of Full Disclosure as to the
Commercial Lien Process - Notice of Lien UCC1.”
Id. at 3.
plaintiff states his requested relief of the total amount of
“$1.354204370202e (lawful us silver Dollars).”
ECF No. 1 at 4. As a “Presettlement Offer, ”
plaintiff offers to accept half this dollar amount plus other
conditions which include: vacating all cases involving him,
placing his name on the “Do Not Stop or Detain”
list, releasing an escrow account to him, and transferring a
list of properties to him and his organization. Id.
next twenty pages of the complaint are titled
“Affidavit of Negative Adverment” and they
contain numerous random and unrelated allegations of
wrongdoing by a variety of people, companies, courts, and
police departments. The Court notes that many of the
situations plaintiff complains about do not involve any of
the named defendants. In the majority of the incidents
described, plaintiff explains his “sovereign
status” to people and he does not get the response he
would like. He then claims his rights have been violated and
that he has a “uniform commercial code” claim
against them. For example, plaintiff describes multiple
encounters with the police where they request to see his
driver's license and vehicle registration. In response,
plaintiff explains his “sovereign status” and his
“right to travel.” After receiving tickets from
multiple police officers, plaintiff simply mails them back to
the police department warning them to “cease and
plaintiff does not only discuss his “sovereign
status” with the police. He explains it to a hotel
clerk “to make her aware not to violate his human
rights;” to a towing company operator in an attempt to
avoid paying the cost to reclaim his vehicle; and to a bank
representative in an attempt to open an account without a
driver's license. ECF No. 1 at 6, 10, 11. Plaintiff also
seems to use this justification to avoid paying child support
obligations. Id. at 20.
describes himself as the “messenger of the Lord”
and discusses how shock devices, and other weapons, do not
work against a “natural man” like himself. ECF
No. 1 at 5. In his final page of ‘Negative
Adverments,' plaintiff summarizes by claiming that there
is a “St. Louis City wide conspiracy” against him
and that he “charge[s] the UNITED STATES with treason
to the law of the Land.” Id. at 24.
remaining fifty plus pages of plaintiff's complaint lists
over a hundred different people and organizations, including
police officers, judges, prosecutors, and many local cultural
sites. For each listed, the plaintiff states the alleged
damages owed to him. He seeks a ...