United States District Court, N.D. New York
D. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF PRO SE
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In Forma Pauperis
pro se Shaka D. Williams commenced this action On
October 13, 2017 with the filing of a complaint, Dkt. No. 1
(“Compl.”) and, in lieu of this Court's
filing fee, submitted a motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. Also on October 13, this
Court directed administrative closure with opportunity to
comply with the filing fee requirement. Dkt. No. 3. On
October 20, 2017, plaintiff filed an inmate authorization
form, Dkt. No. 4, and the Court reopened the case. Upon
review of plaintiff's IFP application, Dkt. Nos. 2, 4,
the Court determines that plaintiff may properly proceed
1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that,
when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, "the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus,
it is a court's responsibility to determine that a
plaintiff may properly maintain his complaint before
permitting him to proceed with his action.
purporting to commence this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleges that defendants have violated Article I,
Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States
of America by “attempting to enforce a contract on
plaintiff and incarcerating plaintiff without obtaining
jurisdiction.” Compl. at 6. Plaintiff contends that he
was “involuntarily and against his will brought to St.
Lawrence County Court, at the request for an Order by Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General, via James J. Mindell,
Assistant Attorney General, said Order given by Jerome J.
Richards, Judge, to be arraigned on an
Indictment/Presentment-/Offer to Contract.”
Id. at 8. Plaintiff stated that, upon arrival to the
courthouse, he was “seen by an attorney, ” and he
informed the attorney that he “do [sic] not consent to
these procedures, not do [sic] he grant power of attorney to
him . . . that he is not to speak for him or on his behalf
and is without permission to represent him nor do [sic] he
want him to.” Id. at 9.
further contends that he was brought before Judge Richards,
and stated that “he was not Shaka Williams, the
fictitious entity (ens legis) and that he is making a special
visitation to deny jurisdiction of the court, that he makes a
reservation for all rights and he do [sic] not want to do
business with the court or enter into any contract with the
court.” Id. Plaintiff expressed that he did
not understand the charges brought against him and did not
wish to enter a plea. Id. Plaintiff refused to
accept a copy of the
“Indictment/Presentment/Offer” from Assistant
Attorney General Mindell and “verbally declin[ed] the
offer to contract and do business with him.”
Id. at 10. Judge Richards “ordered plaintiff
remanded without bail” and entered a not guilty plea
“on behalf of the plaintiff without his consent.”
Id. Judge Richards ordered plaintiff's
fingerprints and photographs to be taken, “and
instructed the officers to use force if necessary[.]”
further alleges that he was again brought before Judge
Richards on July 13, 2017 “to be arraigned for the same
offer the plaintiff previous [sic] denied on June 10,
2017.” Id. at 10. John W. Hallet, Esq. was
assigned by the Court to represent plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff informed the Mr. Hallet that he did “not
consent to representation by Mr. Hallett, Attorney” and
informed him that “anything he say [sic] or do [sic] is
without his consent pertinent to plaintiff and is on his own
accord and not on behalf of plaintiff and plaintiff do [sic]
not give power of attorney to Hallet for any of his
affairs.” Id. Mr. Hallet informed the St.
Lawrence County Court that plaintiff pleaded “not
guilty.” Id. “Thereafter, plaintiff
informed the court that he did not give consent for John W.
Hallett to have power of attorney or the liberty to speak for
him, and furthermore, the plaintiff do [sic] not plea at all
or do [sic] he want to do business with the court. Plaintiff
demanded that the charges be dismissed.” Id.
at 11. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Richards ignored his
statements and again remanded him to jail. Id.
was next brought before Judge Richards on September 15, 2017.
Compl. at 13. Plaintiff contended that the Judge, Mr.
Hallett, and/or Eric T. Schneiderman “refuse to rescind
their offer, Judge Richards refuse to dismiss the offer even
after petitioner demand the dismissal on all Court dates
where he refuse to contract and grant them
jurisdiction.” Id. Judge Richards told
plaintiff that he had three options: retain his own counsel,
have Mr. Hallet represent him, or proceed pro se.
Id. Plaintiff “declined” “all
offers, ” “demanded a dismissal and demanded the
Judge to stop bringing him here by Ordering agency(ies) of
the government to bring e against my will.”
Id. Plaintiff contends that his “life is in
danger every time he is forced to court against his will,
shall he refuse, government agency(ies) will use physical
force that can cause grave injury to the plaintiff.”
requests that the Court (1) “[p]ermanently enjoin the
defendants, their agents, assistants, successors, employees
and persons acting in concert or cooperation with them from
further violating the rights guaranteed by United States
Constitution, Article 1, Section 10"; (2) “[t]he
Court receive evidence at a hearing, to determine, whether
plaintiff's constitutional rights has [sic] been violated
and or that defendant violated the constitution [sic] rights
in their individual and or their official capacity [sic], and
declare that constitutional standards shall be employed to
protect plaintiff's rights”; (3) “[t]hat the
Court issue a judgment declaring that plaintiff have a right
to contract or not to contract”; (4) “the Court
issue a preliminary injunction, and upon final hearing, a
permanent mandatory injunction, directing defendants from
further seizing plaintiff without his consent, forcing him to
the St. Lawrence County Court in an attempt to enforce an
adhesive contract on him” (5) [t]hat the Court enter a
judgment granting to plaintiff compensatory damages from each
defendant in their individual capacity in the sum of $25,
000.00 for violating rights guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art. 1
Sec. 10”; (6) “[t]hat the Court enter a judgment
granting to plaintiff punitive damages in the sum of $100,
000.00 for the malicious and willful misconduct by each
defendant”; and (7) [t]hat the Court enter a judgment
granting to plaintiff costs, fees, and expenses of this
action; [a]nd for such other relief as this Court may deem
just and proper.” Id. at 14-15.