Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

King v. Mercedes Benz of New Orleans

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 29, 2019

THE KING/MOROCCO
v.
MERCEDES BENZ OF NEW ORLEANS

         SECTION: “B” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          KAREN WELLS ROBY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider Application to Proceed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs (R. Doc. 14) by the Defendant The King/Morocco (a Sovereign Citizen) seeking an order of the Court granting him permission to file the subject complaint without payment of fees.

         I. Factual Background

         This matter was filed by “The King/Morocco” a sovereign citizen[1] who seeks to enforce the treaty of Tripoli, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the International Human Rights Law, Constitution of Morocco and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He alleges that on May 31, 2018 he went to Mercedes Benz of New Orleans seeking employment but was not able to receive an opportunity to be hired and nor was he allowed the opportunity to participate in an interview. He alleges that the failure to interview him is discriminatory and that he was mentally traumatized by the decision. He generally contends that his claim is based upon fraud, conspiracy, collusion and genocide but provides no facts to support such a claim. As a result, he seeks an award of punitive damages, “assumed damages”, actual damages and pain and suffering. He also seeks three million dollars in gold.

         He filed a claim with the EEOC on September 26, 2018, which was denied and a right to sue letter was issued on June 28, 2018. The right to sue letter was issued to “The King/Morocco” in his birth name Myron G. Simms Jr. (“Simms”) In the Charge of Discrimination, Simms alleges that he originally went to the dealership to apply for a sales position, which he contends he is qualified to do but was refused an interview in December 2016.

         II. Standard of Review

         When a civil action is commenced in a federal district court, the statutory filing fee, currently set at $400, must ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court is authorized, however, to permit a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis status if a party “is unable to pay” the standard fee for commencing an action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

         In all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. While a duly licensed attorney may operate as a law firm, see Puckkett v. McPhillips Shinbaum, LLP 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26215, 2008 WL 906569 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2008) [ an entity self-designating itself as a “law firm”], a person not duly admitted to legal practice but merely self-describing himself as an attorney…cannot act as an attorney. This bar applies to an individual's attempt to act on behalf of any juridical entity or natural person in the court of law; he can only act as may represent any [plaintiff] he is an attorney duly admitted to practice in this District; otherwise, [the party] can act only represent himself.

         III. Analysis

         “The King/Morroco” has filed this suit because as Simms he went to Mercedes Benz of New Orleans to apply for a job but did not receive an interview. While he filed this suit in his strawman name, “The King/ Morroco” suggesting that the Court only has power over the strawman, the Court can only accept a pauper application from a juridical person, Simms.

         If the Court, for the sake of argument acknowledges “The King/Morroco”, the strawman, when in fact it was Simms who applied for the job and was not interviewed, the claim by the strawman is legally frivolous.

         Further, given the supporting documents filed by “The King/Morroco”, plaintiff's allegations are couched in terms of the “sovereign citizen” argument, which “has been rejected repeatedly by the courts.” Smith v. United States, No. 1:12-cv-00900, 2013 WL 5464723, at *1 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 30, 2013) (quoting Nunn v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-12-MHT, 2013 WL 1099321, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2013)).

         Adherents to the “sovereign citizen” theory “believe that the state and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their behavior.” United States v. Ulloa, 511 Fed.Appx. 105, 106 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Presley v. Prodan, No. 3:12-3511-CMC-JDA, 2013 WL 1342465, at *2 (Mar. 11, 2013) (collecting cases describing the ‚Äúsovereign ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.