United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
THE POTENTATE OF THE HOUSE OF AHAROWN SANCTUARY AMBASSADOR AT LARGE ABIYAH HABIN YAH (HA BINYAH) EX REL PAUL SMITH PETITIONER
THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT et al. RESPONDENTS
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge
“The Potentate Of The House Of Aharown Sanctuary:
Ambassador at large:Abiyah Habin Yah (Ha Binyah) ex rel: Paul
Smith, ” filed a pro se Petition for
“Declaratory Judgement Pursuant To: Title 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201-2 and Article III, section 2 of the United States
of America Constitution with Title 8 U.S.C. Aliens and
Nationality” (DN 1).
12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.” For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v.
Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). However,
“[o]ur duty to be ‘less stringent' with pro
se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled
allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16,
19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted). And this Court is not
required to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v.
Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169
(6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the Court
“to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro
se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court
from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an
advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most
successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
petition, as Respondents, Petitioner names “The
Commonwealth of Kentucky 14th Amendment Citizenship
Benefit” and “Paul Smith.” He asks the
Court for a declaratory judgment “to terminate the
‘actual controversy' as to my Name, Nationality and
Political status, in which is being challenged by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky and Honorable Judge M. Shakes in
which Jurisdiction, Subject-matter, Personam and extra
territorily is being adjudicated upon my Person and
Ambassador at large status.” He states that a
declaratory judgment “as to my status would definitely
end the ‘actual controversy' as to Jurisdiction and
citizenship in which the current state proceedings of alleged
criminal actions are being tried.” He claims that
“the prepondence of the evidence clearly shows that I
am not Paul Smith, PAUL SMITH or any derivitive thereof of
United States citizen or a resident of any state of the
Union[.]” Petitioner additionally asks for a
“Declaration of status (legal/Private), ”
“of Non-U.S. Citizenship - Alien/Foreign birth, ”
of Native American nationality of the Law tribe”; for
“Diplomatic immunity as an Ambassador at large”;
and for the Court to “Declare the proper venue of
criminal proceedings pursuant to Article II section 2 and
Title 28 U.S.C. 1251 original Jurisdiction of Alien, Foreign
and diplomatic status.”
28 of the United States Code, section 2201 (the Declaratory
Judgment Act) is an “enabling Act, which confers a
discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon
the litigant” to have a case heard in federal court.
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287 (1995)
(quoting Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff
Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241 (1952)); Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co. v. Sunshine Corp., 74 F.3d 685, 687 (6th Cir.
1996). It does not provide an independent basis for federal
jurisdiction. Victor Foods, Inc. v. Crossroads Econ. Dev.
of St. Charles Cty., Inc., 977 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir.
1992) (per curiam). Before invoking the Declaratory Judgment
Act, a federal court must “have jurisdiction
already” under some other federal statute. Heydon
v. MediaOne of S.E. Mich., Inc., 327 F.3d 466, 470 (6th
Cir. 2003). In short, Petitioner cannot invoke the
Declaratory Judgment Act as the basis of this Court's
also cites to Article III, section 2, which provides:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies
between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of
another State;--between Citizens of different
States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands
under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Further, under 28
U.S.C. § 1251, also referenced by Petitioner:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other
public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the
citizens of another State ...