IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RODERIC DEMAIN GATLING-BEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 1:25CV137 ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, submitted a document entitled LEGAL NOTICE OF REMOVAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT. However, instead of seeking to remove a pending case from the state courts, he instead appears to attack his past state court criminal convictions. The document he filed is not a recognizable method for achieving this goal. Instead, the proper avenue for such an attack is ordinarily a petition for habeas corpus under

. For this reason, the Court will construe the submission as a petition under

for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody. For the following reasons, the Petition cannot be further processed. 1. The filing fee was not received, nor was an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis submitted and signed by Petitioner. 2. Petitioner did not use the required § 2254 Forms. Rule 2, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The Clerk will forward to Petitioner the proper forms. 3. Petitioner’s arguments turn on his claimed status as a member of the Moorish-American Nation and involve commercial law. Commercial law does not affect criminal convictions and Petitioner’s claimed nationality or ethnicity does not prevent him from being prosecuted for crimes. If Petitioner seeks to attack his convictions, he must raise proper claims for relief. Because of these pleading failures, the Petition will be filed and then dismissed, without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition on the proper habeas corpus forms with the $5.00 filing fee, or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and otherwise correcting the defects noted.1 To further aid Petitioner, the Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, new § 2254 forms, and instructions for filing a § 2254 petition, which Petitioner should follow.

In forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation of dismissal with permission to file a new petition which corrects the defects of the present Petition.

1 Because Petitioner’s submission is being dismissed without prejudice and is not being decided on its merits, this case will not count as a first petition which would later trigger the prohibitions against second or successive petitions found in

(b). However, if Petitioner chooses to later submit a § 2254 petition that conforms with this Order and Recommendation, he should be aware that he is normally entitled to have only one § 2254 petition decided on its merits. Second or successive petitions are barred from consideration by this Court unless a petitioner first receives permission from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to file such a petition.

(b). That permission is granted only in very narrow circumstances. Because of this, Petitioner should act carefully in resubmitting a petition. See generally Castro v. United States,

(2003). If Petitioner wishes to challenge his conviction, he must use the § 2254 forms supplied by the Court, include all of the claims for relief he wishes to raise, and closely follow the instructions provided. Petitioner may also choose not to submit a petition, in which case his claims will not be considered further. Any such filing must be timely and, to the extent there are any issues regarding the running of the statute of limitations in this case, the parties can litigate those issues following any refiling by Petitioner. Finally, if Petitioner wants a form of relief other than relief from his conviction or sentence, he should make that clear in any new submission and should state that he is not seeking to attack his conviction or sentence. He should not use the § 2254 forms in that instance. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status 1s granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send Petitioner § 2254 forms, instructions, and a current application to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be construed as a habeas petition under

and dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition which corrects the defects of the current Petition. The new petition must be accompanied by either the five-dollar filing fee or a current application to proceed in forma pauperis. This, the 7" day of July, 2025.

LO dade, United States Magistrate Judge