Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03611/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03611-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Morah Ella Bey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Connie Contes, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-3611-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 The Court previously addressed this case in an Order dated November 3, 2016 

(Doc. 5). That Order gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to 

address two apparent deficiencies in the original complaint. First, there appeared to be no 

basis for federal court jurisdiction. Second, the complaint was undecipherable in major 

part. In other words, the Court found it difficult to understand what the Plaintiff was 

trying to say. 

 On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which asserts as 

the alleged basis for jurisdiction the following: “This court has jurisdiction over this 

matter pursuant to I herby hold the oath of[ccc] to uphold the constitution of this mateer 

Jd4190, court has no jurisdiction over [sb ,zb] [meb, bs] judge [ccc]and [dcs] has been 

unconstitutional, perjury under oath violation of acts Clerks masquerading as a judge , the 

temporary custody notice signed under threat dress and Corrosion , child trafficking,no 

due process §§ Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241: Conspiracy Against.” [quoted as in the 

original] 

Case 2:16-cv-03611-DKD Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Court again finds that the Amended Complaint does not contain a plain 

statement demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff may be complaining 

that a state court judge and a state agency have taken custody of her children but the 

Amended Complaint does not demonstrate that this federal Court has jurisdiction over 

this matter. Plaintiff’s citation to 18 U.S.C. § 241 does not provide this Court with 

jurisdiction as this statute includes no private right of action. In other words, this is a 

criminal statute and only the United States Department of Justice may bring a legal action 

based on this statute. Mousseaux v. U.S. Com’r. of Indian Affairs, 806 F.Supp. 1433 

(D.S.D. 1992). 

 Moreover, in our federal system of government, respect between the state and 

federal courts requires that federal courts often abstain from interfering with matters that 

are properly before the state courts. Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 

496 (1941). As set forth in the previous Order, it may well be that Plaintiff may contest 

the state court action by an appeal to a higher court within the Arizona state court system. 

 Thus, because Plaintiff did not comply with the previous Order that Plaintiff 

provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief”, 

the Court will take the action that it warned Plaintiff about and dismiss this case without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and pursuant to the consent of all 

parties who are presently before the Court to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) (Doc. 8). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED dismissing this matter without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in 

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). 

 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-03611-DKD Document 9 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 2