United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
VAN MEERVELD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Christopher Dwayne Martin a/k/a Martin El Bey, a state
pretrial detainee, filed this pro se and in
forma pauperis federal civil rights action against
various state and local officials. Although his complaint is
largely incomprehensible, the thrust of his legal argument is
that the officials are violating his rights by refusing to
acknowledge that he is a sovereign citizen of aboriginal
Moroccan descent. See Gravatt v. United States, 100
Fed.Cl. 279, 282 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (explaining the
“sovereign citizen” belief system); El Ameen
Bey v. Stumpf, 825 F.Supp.2d 537 (D.N.J. 2011)
(explaining the myth of the “Moorish Movement”
and other similar fictions such as “sovereign
citizens” and their motives). As relief, he requests:
I, the Aboriginal Native Morocco (AMERICAN), by Rights of
‘Sovereignty' Declare all listed Defendants be
penalized in their personal & official capacity to wit,
forthwith without prejudice. Monetary damages shall be paid
to me for each day/night since arrested & detained on
02/23/2017 until I get release. Each violation of Defendants
have a specified amount to pay according to U.S.C. &
U.C.C. for everyday held captive. I also seek dismissal &
release of all pending accusation of STATE against
law mandates that federal courts “review, before
docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Regarding such lawsuits, federal law
further requires: “On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint … is frivolous
….” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
with respect to actions filed in forma pauperis,
such as the instant lawsuit, federal law similarly provides:
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the
case at any time if the court determines that ... the action
… is frivolous ….” 28 U.S.C. §
complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.” Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d
174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). In making a determination as to
whether a claim is frivolous, the Court has “not only
the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce
the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327 (1989); Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No.
153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1994).
addition to the myriad other problems with plaintiff's
complaint,  the simplest reason this case should be
dismissed by the Court sua sponte is that the theory
on which plaintiff's claims are based, i.e. the
“sovereign citizen” legal theory, is legally
frivolous. See, e.g., United States v.
Austin, Crim. Action No. 13-194, 2018 WL 6326435, at *2
(E.D. La. Dec. 4, 2018); Westfall v. Davis, Civ.
Action No. 7:18-cv-00023, 2018 WL 2422058, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
May 4, 2018), adopted, 2018 WL 2414794 (N.D. Tex.
May 29, 2018); LaVergne v. USA, Docket No.
18-cv-238, 2018 WL 2760336, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2018),
adopted, 2018 WL 2747058 (W.D. La. June 7, 2018);
El v. Louisiana, Civ. Action No. 16-2125, 2017 WL
1969552, at *3 (E.D. La. May 12, 2017) (Barbier, J.);
Mason v. Anderson, Civil Action No. H-15-2952, 2016
WL 4398680, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016).
therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's
complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar
that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district
court, provided that the party has been served with notice
that such consequences will result from a failure to object.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services
Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
 Rec. Doc. 3, p. 5.