Opinion
2:23-mc-00001-RSL
01-09-2023
STATE OF GEORGIA, Plaintiff, v. KAHLIEFF ADAMS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is a pleading entitled “Defendants Notice of Removal,” a copy of a criminal indictment that appears to have been filed in the Fulton Superior Court for the State of Georgia, and an application to proceed informa pauperis (IFP). Dkt. 1. The Court reviews complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and may sua sponte dismiss any complaint which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See Finnegan v. U.S. Bank, 2021 WL 5545960 at * 1 (S.D. Cal. April 28, 2021) citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). For the reasons below, the Court finds this action is frivolous and DISMISSES it with prejudice.
In this case, Joseph Stanley Pigott initiated an action as a “defendant movant” on behalf of himself and 28 other “defendants.” Mr. Pigott filed two pleadings. The first is a “notice of removal” that claims Mr. Pigott is “King Abdul Mumin El” and is “authorized to PROTECT,
DEFEND & ENFORCE the Court ordered Revolutionary War Armistice The Moorish American Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787-1836.” Mr. Pigott also contends the Flag of Morocco should be “ON TOP OF THE WHITE HOUSE/PRESIDENTIAL PALACE.” He further claims he watched other Moors being railroaded in a criminal prosecution in the State of Georgia; that “George Washington committed genocide against my ancestors”; “the Court of Morocco is the only court on this land”; and “the venue and jurisdiction of Judge Ural Granville's court is bogus.”
The second pleading Mr. Pigott filed appears to be a copy of criminal charges filed in Fulton Superior Court, Georgia, on August 5, 2022, against the other defendants named in this action.
Mr. Pigott's pleadings are wholly deficient. First, he is not a lawyer and while a nonattorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, Mr. Pigott “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987). Mr. Pigott thus cannot bring a lawsuit on behalf of the other named “defendants.” Further, Mr. Pigott is not named as a criminal defendant in the charges pending in Georgia that he attached and apparently challenges. He thus is not a defendant at all, but a lay person attempting to bring an action on behalf of others charged with criminal offenses in the State of Georgia.
Second, Mr. Pigott's claims that he is a King, that the Flag of Morocco should fly over this country's White House, that the Georgia State Court Judge lacks authority, and that the Court of Morocco is the only Court in this land are frivolous and nonsensical.
And lastly, a federal complaint challenging actions that have occurred in the State of Georgia should be brought there. Additionally, this Court will normally abstain from interfering with an ongoing criminal prosecution as is the case here.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:
1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is stricken as moot.
3. The clerk shall provide a copy of this order to Mr. Pigott.