UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case Number: 20-20871-CIV-MORENO SAR YAWEH EL, Moorish Federal Republic Gov., 06143

Plaintiff, Vs. MIAMI DADE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR BEING FRIVOLOUS AND DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. For the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED for being frivolous. In his in forma pauperis complaint, Plaintiff seeks relief for “the acts of the various City and State agents [that] fall within the definition of genocide.” He contends that these defendant “Policy Enforcers’ are in direct violation of Nature’s God and Nature’s Law along with Article III and VI of the Constitution of the United States of America; to include violations of the International Peace Treaty between the Moors of North America (North West Africa) and the United States of America, 1786-1787 (The Barbry Treaties).” A complaint is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), which contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). A court may dismiss claims under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where the claims rest on an “indisputably meritless” legal theory or

are comprised of factual contentions that are “clearly baseless.” Jd. at 327. In Neitzke, the Supreme Court provided several examples of frivolous or malicious claims. Where the defendant is clearly immune from suit, or where the plaintiff alleges infringement of a legal interest that obviously does not exist, then the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Jd. Claims detailing fantastic or delusional scenarios fit into the factually baseless category. Jd. at 327-28. The Court notes that a pro se plaintiff must be given greater leeway in pleading his or her complaint. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). Mindful of this principle, the Court nevertheless finds that the complaint does not state a valid federal cause of action and fails to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint is frivolous under

(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not contain “an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke,

. Plaintiff details fantastic or readily delusional scenarios that are “clearly baseless” and unintelligible, while his alleged legal theories (if any) are “indisputably meritless.” Jd.; accord Battle v. Cent. State Hosp.,

(11th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, after review, the Court concludes the complaint is frivolous. It is therefore ADJUDGED that the complaint is DISMISSED, all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT, and the case is CLOSED. on DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this fo of February 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Sar Yaweh El

street Miami, FL 33150 PRO SE