Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05197/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-05197-LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

:MANSA-EL: BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY E. O’MALLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05197-LB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: ECF No. 1

INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff :Mansa-El: Bey1brings this complaint against defendants Nancy O’Malley, 

Sabrina Farrell, Teddy Chu, and Chad Finke, claiming that they denied him due process; denied 

him the right to personal property; engaged in treason, mixed domestic war, malfeasance of office, 

and slavery; refused to communicate with him in good faith; refused to disclose lawful authority; 

destroyed the right to life, liberty, and property; and engaged in fraud, extortion, grand theft, 

robbery, and attempted kidnapping.2 Mr. Bey does not plead any facts that support any of his 

claims.

 

1 Mr. Bey uses this punctuation. See Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1. Citations refer to material in the 

Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents.

2

Id. at 5.

Case 3:19-cv-05197-EMC Document 9 Filed 08/29/19 Page 1 of 5
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05197-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The court previously granted Mr. Bey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.3 Before directing 

the United States Marshal to serve the defendants with Mr. Bey’s complaint, the court must screen 

it for minimal legal viability. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Having done so, the court finds that the 

complaint fails to state a claim. The court dismisses the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) but extends Mr. Bey an opportunity to file an amended complaint if he can cure 

the complaint’s deficiencies.

STATEMENT

Mr. Bey alleges that:

COUNT 1: On or about November 30, 2018, Chad Finke[,] Clerk of the Superior 

Court of California Conuty [sic] of Alameda[,] accepted and honored a false 

document by the Erin Loback[,] Deputy District Attorney Alameda County a 

felony; Title 18 USC 1001) of an undocumented, unproven liability, shown to be 

false by the Complainant Affiant Mansa-El: Bey© [sic], to take property without 

due process of law to give it to the County of Alameda. Criminal Conspiracy, Sec. 

186, Racketeering, Title 18, Sec 241, 1961, 1962.

COUNT 2: In accepting and honoring false documentation, Respondent(s), 

specifically and willingly conspired with the County of Alameda to steal the 

property of Mansa-El: Bey©, (expansion but separate count of count 1) denying 

Mansa-El: Bey© the rights of due process of law for any action against him. The 

rights denied, violated or trespassed are enumerated below. Each action — denial, 

violation or trespass, is a separate high crime or misdemeanor, brought together in 

this count as violations against the constitution. The penalty is defined under Title 

18 USC Sections 3571 individually listed for subtotal tally as to the civil damages 

sustained by such criminal actions.4

The complaint provides no further details about this document or this interaction. The complaint 

makes no allegations against the other three defendants (Ms. O’Malley, Ms. Farrell, or Mr. Chu).

 

3 Order – ECF No. 4.

4 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 12.

Case 3:19-cv-05197-EMC Document 9 Filed 08/29/19 Page 2 of 5
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05197-LB 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ANALYSIS

1. Governing Law

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 

subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent that it is 

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an in forma pauperis complaint 

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the United States Marshal to serve the 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127. The Ninth 

Circuit has noted that “[t]he language of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) parallels the language of Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). As the 

Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage 

the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying 

litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 327 (1989).

Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint 

if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint 

include a “short and plain statement” showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. “To survive a 

motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The 

complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the plaintiff must “provide the 

grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels and conclusions”; a mere 

“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

In determining whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is ordinarily 

limited to the face of the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 

Case 3:19-cv-05197-EMC Document 9 Filed 08/29/19 Page 3 of 5
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05197-LB 4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(9th Cir. 2002). Factual allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable 

inferences drawn from them must be construed in favor of the plaintiff. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 

Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court cannot assume, however, that “the [plaintiff] 

can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 

Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). “Nor is the court required to accept as true 

allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 

inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

2. Application

Mr. Bey fails to state a claim. The only allegation that Mr. Bey makes against any of the 

defendants is that Mr. Fink, Clerk of the California Superior Court in Alameda County, accepted 

and honored a document from a Deputy District Attorney (who is not named as a defendant in this 

case). Mr. Bey’s claims against Mr. Fink fail for multiple reasons. First, such claims are barred by 

the Eleventh Amendment. Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 

2013) (“Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the [California] Superior Court (or its employees), 

because such suits are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”). Second, such claims are barred by 

quasi-judicial immunity. Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002)

(absolute quasi-judicial immunity applies to court clerks for court functions). Third, Mr. Bey does 

not state a cognizable claim against Mr. Fink in any event. Contrary to Mr. Bey’s assertions, an 

allegation that Mr. Fink accepted and honored a document from a Deputy District Attorney, 

without more, does not plead a conspiracy or any other of the claims Mr. Bey brings.

Mr. Bey makes no factual allegations against the other three defendants and thus fails to state a 

claim against them as well.

CONCLUSION

The court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend. Mr. Bey may file an amended 

complaint within fourteen days of the date of this order (i.e., by September 12, 2019). He may also 

dismiss his case voluntarily by filing a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal, which will operate 

Case 3:19-cv-05197-EMC Document 9 Filed 08/29/19 Page 4 of 5
ORDER – No. 19-cv-05197-LB 5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

as a dismissal without prejudice. If Mr. Bey does not timely file an amended complaint or 

voluntarily dismiss his case, the undersigned will direct the clerk of court to reassign this case to a 

district judge and recommend that the newly assigned district judge dismiss the complaint with 

prejudice and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05197-EMC Document 9 Filed 08/29/19 Page 5 of 5