Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:2017cv00071 - Document 5 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 12/14/2017. Copy of this Memorandum Opinion was mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ° " L Richmond Division DEC I42017 [j DARRELL WAYNE BROWN, CLERK, U S. D,' I fiiCT COURT RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV71 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Darrell filed this Wayne Bivens Brown, a action.^ federal The inmate matter is evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. proceeding before the pro se, Court for For the reasons set for below, the Court will dismiss the action as legally frivolous. I. Pursuant to the Court must dismiss STANDARD OF REVIEW Prison Litigation Reform Act any action filed by a determines the action (1) "is frivolous" claim on which relief may be granted." The first meritless standard legal includes claims theory,'" or 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) or "fails to state a Named v. Agents § 1915A(b) (1) . "'an indisputably where Clay v. (quoting Neitzke ^ Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (2) 28 U.S.C. claims this prisoner if the Court based upon contentions are clearly baseless.'" ("PLRA") the Yates, 809 Williams, of "'factual Fed. F. Supp. 490 U.S. Bureau of Dockets.Justia.com 319, 327 {1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). While the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon V• Leeke, the 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 {4th Cir. 1978), inmate's advocate, constitutional claims the face of his complaint. (4th Cir. 1997) sua inmate (Luttig, J., II. January 25, 2017, ("Complaint," ECF No. 1.)^ sections. In (See id. the developing failed See Brock v. Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 On sponte to raise and on the 107 F.3d 241, Carroll, 243 Beaudett v. City of (4th Cir. 1985). BROWN'S COMPLAINT Brown submitted this civil action. Brown's Complaint consists of several at 2.) first section of Brown's Complaint, "Rule 8(E)." he provides a wherein he notifies the Court of his "absolute ministerial right" to make a to statutory clearly concurring); "Special Notice to the Court," pursuant it does not act as (Id. at 3.) "restricted appearance" Brown then identifies himself as a real flesh and blood man, a Commonwealth citizen and inhabitant of the County of Norfolk, Virginia, by special visitation in propria personam, not general to present this, his notice and demand for written proof (verified and demonstrated evidence) of jurisdiction ^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to Brown's submission by the CM/ECF docketing system. The Court omits the emphasis and corrects the capitalization in the quotations from Brown's Complaint. over his proper person and over the subject matter in the above entitled cause as known as 2:13CR00146-001.^ (Id.) of Brown further asserts that i t is any court" to determine whether a "outside the jurisdiction complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, (id.) , and that "officers of the court have no immunity." 4.) Brown concludes that once this Court (Id. at determines that jurisdiction is "lacking in the cause in question," he should be "assigned the minimum monetary values as pre precedent . $25,000.00 hour, per 23 minute . punitive damages . Also Rogatory." his Complaint Commercial Affidavit (Id. filed "as to at 5.) According 'lawful public notice'" Commercial Code, and signatory signature, . that herein [of] a document Presented to Brown, styled As/Under that plus as an Letter document is under provisions of the Uniform "[t]he is is per . (Id.) attached "International Brown, period, i.e. $65,217.91 . Secured executing Party this Darrell Wayne instrument, under expressly to declare his status as a non-resident alien 'with no duress, ' in accord to the terms of the aforementioned private agreement," nunc pro tune to his eighteenth birthday. ^ In (Id.) Case No. 2:13-CR-146, Brown was convicted of felony conspiracy in the Norfolk Division of this Court and was sentenced on March 25, 2014 to 24 0 months of imprisonment. Judgment at 1-2, United States v. Brown, No. 2:13-CR-146 (Mar. 25, 2014), ECF No. 38. The prosecutor in his case was Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") Kevin Comstock whom Brown references throughout his Complaint. Brown Moving free, next Party" identifies wherein he living, breathing moral existence, jure, also a known a describes United svibject of, States regulations . In a he . ." Act . . . (Id. or to, section titled, Respondent Office and a defaulted the New "by his its a "natural soil, an a born, [] juris and et du inhabitant, Therefore, not says Brown, a he Constitution or the ordinances, that [sic] private to of statutes, No: Issues," codes or York . in ." the Secretary choice," states to Administrative 2:13CR00146-001 and the Respondent obtained a . Brown remedy administrative the Case Financing Statement of and at 6.) "State his release from custody . Initial Party the Virginia pursuant requesting settled and closed, as of (Id.) "tendered payment named himself "Identification and blood human with sentient Secured Constitution, . titled, man/woman upon the United States citizen." "is not a section flesh real as a (Id.) Procedures be set off, court order for Brown states he filed an "commercial of the State and so Brown concludes longer a controversy before the court." Brown also includes in his papers a registry" that that at the Respondent "there is no (Id. at 6-7.) "Notice of Void Judgment" wherein he argues that the courts to which members of the public currently have access: have no jurisdiction over living men. When the judge and the prosecutor use deceit and trickery to cause the living man to believe he is actually the defendant, those public officials duties, have and breached breached office) with the legal actions. (Id. at 8.) asserts Then, that the in burden "asserter"-in this case, had time and two silent." (2) public, a fiduciary contract and section of their their are titled, proving (oath of subject to "Jurisdiction," jurisdiction lies Brown with the the named Defendant—but although he "has different chances to respond," he "has gone (Id.) In the next section captioned, "revokes, "Rescind of Signatures," Brown rescinds and cancels any and all signatures, and cancels any and all silent or assumed powers of attorney of any parties, known or unknown contracts conferring trusteeship Beneficiary to be placed as a trustee to the trust." Next, "Notice Brown provides of Fiduciary for the Trusteeship causing the (Id. at 9.) "Appointment of Trustee" and a Duty." Brown (Id. at 10.) declares himself the "Grantor and Sole Beneficiary of the Darrell Wayne Brown, Cestui Que United States registry . Vie . . Trust, a ." (Id.) documented Next, vessel under in a "Caveat," Brown observes that the Defendant "has had every opportunity to respond to the proof of claim instrument (s) to him/her by Certified Mail" record," the Defendant "must that were addressed and sent and declares that comply with the "[f]or the Court proof of claim answering each question that has been presented by affidavit form and sent back to the Court." (Id. at 12.) Brown then provides "Judicial Notice," and indicates that he "appoints" AUSA Kevin M. 5 Comstock and his successors "as co-trustees for any judicial or administrative matter in which the Darrell Wayne Brown Cestui Que Vie Trust may be specifically involved, for Case "specifically appoint[s] matter," "zeroing the past, No. the Co-Trustee(s) good faith and candor towards, Finally, & in Conclusion," Defendant Virginia the Brown "exercis[ing] section that against titled, AUSA inadvertence . . . (I^ the justice, un-rebuttable Kevin Secured through at scrupulous 13.) "Relief Comstock Sought and Party, committing negligence He the the Commonwealth of states a and/or that Superior Claim over Case No. that of the "[t]his Commonwealth of (Id.) Therefore, he argues, the 2:13CR00146-001 must be "vacated want/lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss prejudice" he the Holder-in-Due-Course and has established an Virginia concerning the Debtor." in that and for the benefit and on behalf last of Secured Party is and and (Id.) states proceed malfeasance judgment while future, to settle and close the "knowingly and willingly allow[ed] to and 2:13CR00146-001," account," of Darrell Wayne Brown." present, [sic] for with (id.); he should be discharged from the custody of the Commonwealth of Virginia; a hearing should be convened to appoint Kevin Comstock as "trustee(s) of Darrell Wayne Brown," and "the Secured Party Darrell Wayne Brown [should] be released/discharged from any and all obligations owed to the Commonwealth of Virginia." the (Id.) Complaint, Statement, Brown has also appended a number of exhibits to including and numerous a Uniform Commercial other financial III. Code documents. Financing (ECF No. 1-1 ANALYSIS through ECF No. 1-10.) The Complaint delusional. However, It, in this indeed, is utterly frivolous and is the epitome of frivolity and delusion. i t is unnecessary and inappropriate to engage in Brown's fanciful theories for relief, 1315 case (4th Cir. 1996) see Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, (emphasizing that "abbreviated treatment" is consistent with Congress's vision for the disposition of frivolous or "insubstantial 319, are 324 claims" (1989))), (citing Neitzke because, on "inarguable allegation[s]." Williams, legal it is readily apparent conclusion[s]" Neitzke, 490 U.S. at and No. 1:16CV1254 Nov. 10, 2016) appeal dismissed, No. 17-177, 2017 (AJT/MSN) , (dismissing 682 F. WL U.S. 325. as 2016 WL App'x 188 3325030 Complaint is legally frivolous. (4th Cir. (U.S. Oct. they are factual Accordingly, Brown's 6663909, frivolous that "fanciful Complaint will be dismissed as legally frivolous. Rich, 490 to the extent that Brown's allegations comprehensible at all, based v. See Champean v. at similar 2017), 10, *3 (E.D. Va. allegations), cert, 2017). denied. Brown's The action will be dismissed. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Brown. It is so ORDERED. /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date; December } th, 2017
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
