1

In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff states that he is

unemployed, that he has received no money in the last twelve months, that he does not

have any money in a checking or savings account, and that he has no other assets. 

Accordingly, the court will grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

Charles LeWan Moss,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13204

CHARLES LEWAN MOSS,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Before the court is Plaintiff Charles LeWan Moss’s pro se complaint, filed August

14, 2009. Contemporaneous to filing his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will grant Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),1

 the court may, and will,

summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

I. STANDARD

Complaints filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to the

screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863,

866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss

complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or

2:09-cv-13204-RHC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 54
2

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). 

A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it

lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). “A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual

allegations that are ‘fantastic or delusional’ or if it is based on legal theories that are

indisputably meritless.” Brown, 207 F.3d at 866. 

Even if a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, “a district court may, at any

time, dismiss sua sponte a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a

complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or

no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings this suit “in admiralty” alleging a breach of contract. (Compl. at 1,

50.) Plaintiff Charles LeWan Moss, “a Man and a living sole [sic],” alleges he entered

into a security agreement with Defendant “CHARLES LEWAN MOSS,” a “Legal Entity, a

Corporation, a Citizen, and resident of the City of Detroit.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff is the

secured party, whereas Defendant is the debtor. (Id. at 3.) The agreement purports to

constitute “an International Commercial Lien on all property of Debtor Indemnitor on

behalf of, and for the benefit of, Secured Party Creditor Indemnitee in the amount of

three hundred billion United States silver dollars ($300,000,000,000.00) of .999 fine

silver.” (Id. at 7.) The UCC-1 form associated with the security agreement contains a

2:09-cv-13204-RHC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 55
3

warning to “All State, Federal and International Public Officials” stating that it is a

“contract in admiralty jurisdiction.” (Id. at 29.) It goes on to state penalties that can be

assessed against public officials for violating the contract, with most offenses carrying a

“$2,000,000.00 (Two Million) US Dollars, per occurrence” penalty. (Id. at 31-33.) The

“contract” gives officials thirty days to respond; otherwise, the “presumptions” in the

contract are valid. (Id. at 29.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been unable to place

this document in the public record in breach of the agreement. (Id. 7.) Because the

document has not been placed on the record, Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied

“his remedy as provided for by H J R 192(2) 1933.” (Id. 8.) Plaintiff is requesting “the

court to order a Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, ordering

that the Commercial Security Agreement and all related documents be entered into

record. Thereby providing Plaintiff with his remedy.” (Id.)

The court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous because it lacks an arguable

basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. “Charles LeWan Moss” (the person,

in uppercase and lowercase letters) is alleging that he entered into a security

agreement for $3 billion silver dollars with “CHARLES LEWAN MOSS” (the entity, in all

uppercase letters) of the same address. (Compl. at 1,7.) The UCC-1 form appears to

be an attempt to enter into a contract with public officials and then potentially levy fines

against them for various “violations.” (Id. at 31-32.) In addition, in Plaintiff’s complaint,

he references “H J R 192(2) 1933),” which is an apparent reference to House Joint

Resolution 192 (1933), a resolution that “provided for the suspension of the gold

standard.” Clark v. Romanowski, No. 1:07-cv-1061, 2008 WL 2757805, at *2 (W.D.

Mich. 2008). Plaintiff alleges he cannot receive his remedy provided for by this

2:09-cv-13204-RHC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 56
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-13204.MOSS.1915.Dismissal.npk.wpd

4

resolution unless the documents are filed. (Compl. at 2.) These allegations are

“fantastic” and “delusional.” Brown, 207 F.3d at 866. Because Plaintiff does not have

even an arguable claim to relief, the court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 9, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, September 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13204-RHC-MJH Doc # 3 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 57