UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HERI PEDI TEMU EL, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-11641 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

OAKLAND COUNTY, et al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #4) 

On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff Heri Pedi Temu El (“Plaintiff”) filed this action 

against (i) Oakland County, Michigan, (ii) Oakland County Circuit Court Judge 

Lisa Gorcyca, (iii) Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Susan Harvey, and (iv) 

Oakland County Friend of the Court Referee Traci Rink (collectively, the 

“Defendants”). The precise nature of Plaintiff’s Complaint is difficult to 

comprehend. He appears to allege that Defendants (1) refused to recognize him by 

his chosen name, Heri Pedi Temu El (a name he says is recognized by the National 

Association of Moorish Affairs), and instead used his legal name, Kareen Levar 

Manley, in a child support proceeding against him, and (2) wrongly defaulted him 

in that action. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) 

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See Defendants’ 

Motion, ECF #4.) Plaintiff filed an untimely response. (See Plaintiff’s Response, 

2:14-cv-11641-MFL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 08/11/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 179
    2 

ECF #15.) The Court finds that oral argument would not aid its decision on 

Defendants’ Motion and will therefore decide the Motion without a hearing. See

Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ Motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice. 

When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court “must construe the complaint 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and 

determine whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007). Although a pro se complaint must be “liberally construed” and “held to 

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erikson v. 

Pardue, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), “basic pleading essentials” must still be satisfied. 

Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). 

In this case, even construing Plaintiff’s Complaint in the light most 

favorable to him, the Court finds that he has not stated a claim on which relief can 

be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court concludes that, even with a 

liberal reading of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the instant action lacks a 

cognizable basis for granting relief. 

Plaintiff has simply not identified any federal right that Defendants violated 

by proceeding against him under his legally-recognized name, rather than his 

chosen name. And Plaintiff’s Complaint presents no basis to doubt that Kareen 

2:14-cv-11641-MFL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 08/11/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 180
    3 

Levar Manley is, in fact, his legally-recognized name. Indeed, Plaintiff attaches to 

his Complaint a copy of his official birth certificate reflecting his given name of 

Kareen Levar Manley. (See ECF #1-1 at 10, Pg. ID 60.) Although Plaintiff 

purports to attach “all the proper legal documents” indicating that he changed his 

name to Heri Pedi Temu El (Compl. at ¶4), with all due respect to Plaintiff, these 

documents – many of which bear the seal of the “National Association of Moorish 

Affairs” (see, e.g., ECF #1-1 at 2, Pg. ID 52; id. at 4, Pg. ID 54) – are not evidence 

that he officially changed his name under Michigan law. Indeed, Plaintiff has not 

alleged that any court has ever entered an order changing his name to Heri Pedi 

Temu El. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants somehow violated his 

federally-protected rights by proceeding against him using the name Kareen Levar 

Manley – and defaulting him when he failed to properly respond in those 

proceedings – are without merit. 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff challenges the child support order 

entered against him in state court, this Court is prohibited from reviewing that 

order under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 

459, 463 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits “lower federal courts ... from 

exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments”). 

 

2:14-cv-11641-MFL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 08/11/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 181
    4 

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendants’ Motion (ECF #4) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF #1) 

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, in its entirety. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 11, 2014 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on August 11, 2014, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-11641-MFL-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 08/11/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 182