Lawschizo

These eight actions are before the Court upon Plaintiff's submission of numerous civil complaints, letters and various appellate notices. His chain of litigations was triggered on August 18, 2011, when the United States filed a criminal complaint charging him with assault of a federal officer. See United States v. Amin-Bey, Crim. No. 11-MJ-3184 (MF), ECF No. 1.11After Plaintiff was arrested, then Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz committed him for a determination of whether he presented a risk of harm to himself or others. See Amin-Bey, Crim. No. 11-MJ-3184, ECF Nos. 13 and 23. On February 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk conducted another hearing and extended Plaintiff's commitment for evaluation as to whether he was competent to stand trial or a treatment was required to restore him to competency. See id. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff is now housed in Massachusetts, and his criminal proceedings are suspended. See id.

4 Upon being criminally charged, Plaintiff commenced his first action, Sultan Dr. Admiral Ala'Ad-Din v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-4161 (SRC), challenging his mental evaluation and related confinement. See id., ECF No. 1 (“Lawful Complaint Pursuant Exhibit A:184 F.R.D. 588”) (star-sign in original). When this Court construed that submission as an application filed in Plaintiff's criminal matter, Plaintiff made numerous filings with the Court of Appeals.2 Seeid., ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 (“Notice of Direct Appeal,” “Notice of Common Law Certiorari,” “Judicial Notice to Secure Court Order”). In addition, he submitted another civil complaint that gave rise to Amin Bey v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-6040 (SRC). See id., ECF No. 1. Since that submission arrived unaccompanied by his filing fee or in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, this Court denied him IFP status without prejudice. See id., ECF Nos. 3 and 4. Noting that Plaintiff was challenging his criminal confinement, the Court explained to him that a habeas application was the sole proper vehicle to seek release. See id., ECF No. 3, at 2.3Moreover, since Plaintiff's next complaint, submitted in Pharoah Dr. Admiral A.L.S.A. El Bey v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-6340 (SRC), was identical to the one filed in Amin Bey v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-6040 (SRC), the Court terminated Pharoah Dr. Admiral A.L.S.A. El Bey v. United States, Civil Action No. 13-6340 (SRC), as duplicative.

The totality of Plaintiff's submissions suggest his interest in: (a) discussing various theological beliefs; (b) appealing this Court's prior rulings; and (3) seeking release from confinement. Correspondingly, Plaintiff will be denied IFP status in Amin Bey v. United States,

We agree with the District Court that Appellant's complaint is confused, convoluted, and largely incomprehensible. Even construing the complaint liberally, it is impossible to discern any factual allegations, causes of action, or claims for relief. While we are not insensitive to Appellant's situation, we note that he has a history of submitting unintelligible documents to the courts despite having been informed of the requisite pleading standards. In this case, there is simply no construction of his complaint that satisfies those standards. We have considered Appellant's submissions in support of his appeal, and we likewise find them difficult to understand and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Surprisingly generous judge:

Out of an abundance of caution, however, this Court will allow Plaintiff one more opportunity to amend his pleading by stating his cognizable legal challenges, if any. Assertions that relate to Plaintiff's personal view about his citizenship or any other hypothetical matter are not facts which this Court can or will consider to determine whether an amended complaint, if filed, states a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is incumbent upon Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint that is coherent and which sets forth factual assertions that are not conclusory, hypothetical, or speculative in nature.