Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00731/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Gozdan
Defendant
Robert D. Stiles
Defendant
Eddie Wilkerson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

EDDIE WILKERSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2:14cv731-MHT-WC 

 ) 

STEPHEN GOZDAN and ) 

ROBERT D. STILES, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1). On August 8, 2014, the District 

Judge entered an Order referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge “for all 

pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate.” 

Order (Doc. 5). 

Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Mot. (Doc. 2), which 

obligates the court to undertake review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) 

(applying § 1915(e) in non-prisoner action). That statute instructs the court to dismiss 

any action wherein it is determined that an in forma pauperis applicant’s suit is “frivolous 

or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary 

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 7
2 

Upon review of the Complaint, the court finds that this case is due to be dismissed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) because it is frivolous and fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On August 6, 2014, proceeding “In Propria Persona Sui Juris,” and using “The 

Moorish National Republic” letterhead, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging, as best the 

court can discern, that Defendants are planning to foreclose, or have already foreclosed, 

unlawfully on Plaintiff’s home located at 4343 Longleaf Drive, Montgomery, Alabama 

36108. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 3-4. Plaintiff states, 

The failure of the LENDER to give value[] prevents the security interest 

from attaching to the collateral, and therefore there is NOT an enforceable 

right against the Debtor, in regard to the debtor[’]s property. The mortgage 

company did not loan [Plaintiff] any money, gold, or silver[;] therefore[,] 

they cannot attach or foreclose on property. 

Id. at 4. Plaintiff also alleges that he previously mailed a “Writ in the Nature of 

Discovery and Disclosure” and an “Affidavit of Fact: Notice of Default Judgment” to 

each Defendant, neither of whom responded, and “[f]or any person to imply that the Writ 

in the Nature of Discovery does not have to be honored is a violation of [Plaintiff’s] 

Constitutionally Secured Rights to Due Process of Law.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that 

Defendants also violated their duty to “uphold the commercial law of contracts” by 

failing to honor the aforementioned documents served upon them. Id. at 4. Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants’ acts and omissions violate rights guaranteed to Plaintiff through 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 2 of 7
3 

the “Constitution/Treaty and laws of these United States Republic.” Id. at 1. 

 Plaintiff seeks the following relief: that Moorish National laws be enforced; “due 

process”; that this court “stop these abuses of the colorable authority by the Plaintiff as it 

pertain to this Petitioner”; that any criminal charges found be “placed upon the 

Respondents”; that this court “view this Petitioner . . . not as a (brand) NEGRO, 

BLACKMAN (person), COLORED, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, or any other SLAVE 

TITLE”; that the United States Supreme Court “carry out their Judicial Duty in ‘Good 

Faith’ by ordering Plaintiff to be brought before the Law to answer for their criminal and 

unjust actions”; that “[a]ll UNCONSTITUTIONAL ‘Order’ or ‘Action’ associated with it 

/ them, to be dismissed and expunged for the record on it’s face and merits”; that “[a]ll 

Agents, State and Federal Officials, Contractors” to be “informed of the Law of the Land 

(Constitution) and their obligation to uphold the same”; and compensatory and punitive 

damages. Id. at 4-5.

On August 14, 2014, the court entered an Order (Doc. 6) granting Plaintiff leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and staying service of process pending review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff has failed to establish a 

jurisdictional basis for his claims. Plaintiff asserts “[j]urisdiction of this court is invoked 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 3 of 7
4 

under The Zodiac Constitution” and the action is brought to secure rights guaranteed “by 

the Constitution / Treaty and laws of these United States Republic.” Compl. (Doc. 1) at 

1. 

. . . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) provides that a pleading must 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction. A court may find a basis for federal question jurisdiction even 

if a complaint lacks such a jurisdictional statement, so long as the 

complaint makes references to federal law sufficient to permit the court to 

find § 1331 jurisdiction. However, where a complaint is devoid of a single 

citation to a Constitutional provision, a federal statute, or a recognized 

theory of common law as the basis for the allegation that the plaintiff’s 

cause of action arises under federal law, we have held that the allegations 

are insufficient to establish jurisdiction under § 1331. 

Scarborough v. Carotex Const., Inc., 420 F. App’x 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted). 

This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce “The Zodiac Constitution” 

or the “Treaties of Peace and Friendship” cited by Plaintiff in the Complaint. See Bey v. 

Ohio, 1:11 CV 1306, 2011 WL 4944396 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 17, 2011) (“While [the Zodiac 

Constitution and laws of the Moorish National Republic] may be of great personal 

importance to the Plaintiff, they are not recognized by federal courts as binding legal 

authority.”); El Bey v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., 99 CIV 12156 DLC, 2001 WL 228119 

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2001) (“[T]his Court does not have jurisdiction under Article III of the 

United States Constitution to hear [claims regarding violations of the Zodiac 

Constitution] because they do not arise under the Constitution or the laws or treaties of 

the United States.”); Bey v. Philadelphia Passport Agency-M, 1986 WL 559 (E.D. Pa. 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 4 of 7
5 

Dec. 30, 1986), aff’d, 829 F.2d 30 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Claims for violation of [] rights under 

the Moorish Zodiac Constitution are not cognizable in this court.”). 

 Plaintiff has also failed to establish jurisdiction based on diversity jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil 

actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff did not plead an amount in controversy. 

If Plaintiff seeks to establish jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a 

violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, 

Plaintiff still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

To state a claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, 

respondents must establish that they were deprived of a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation 

was committed under color of state law. Like the state-action requirement 

of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of § 

1983 excludes from its reach “‘merely private conduct, no matter how 

discriminatory or wrongful,’” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002, 102 

S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 

13, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948)). 

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999). Here, Plaintiff named 

only private, non-state actors as Defendants and did not allege that Defendants were 

acting under color of state law. Thus, even if Plaintiff was attempting to bring this action 

under § 1983, he still has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Lastly, the court notes that, while a reviewing court is required to consider pro se

complaints more liberally than those prepared by an attorney, pro se plaintiffs are 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 5 of 7
6 

required to follow the same procedural and pleading rules as other litigants. See Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989). 

Given the sheer frivolity of Plaintiff’s allegations and his inability to state any viable 

claim for relief pursuant to the legal theories and authorities he has presented, the court 

finds that allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint would be futile and, thus, is not 

warranted in this instance. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is 

the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s case be 

DISMISSED prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) 

because the Complaint is frivolous on its face and fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted. 

 It is further 

ORDERED that the Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before September 26, 2014. Any objections filed must 

specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the 

party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by 

the District Court. The Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not a final order 

of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 6 of 7
7 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981. 

Done this 12th day of September, 2014. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

Case 2:14-cv-00731-MHT-WC Document 8 Filed 09/12/14 Page 7 of 7