Ray v. Dismukes et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:26-cv-00090-MR
JAMES ALEXANDER RAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
) ON INITIAL REVIEW
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 5].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff James Alexander Ray (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the
State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional
Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina. On March 26, 2026, he filed this
action, naming Leslie Cooley Dismukes, identified as Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Adult Correction (“NCDAC”), and Ben Anderson,
identified as Superintendent of Alexander, as Defendants. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff
appears to allege as follows.
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Plaintiff was born a free Moorish American National citizen of the
Asiatic Moorish Nation. On December 19, 2019, the NCDAC denationalized
him by labeling him a Black American,1 which made Plaintiff’s imprisonment
illegal for lack of “judicial,” subject matter, and personal jurisdiction. [Id. at
6]. For seven years, Defendants “ha[ve] committed Genocide and Acts of
Denationalization” by keeping Plaintiff restrained. Plaintiff became aware of
the issue in March 2026 and filed a grievance. [Id.].
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief including immediate release from
incarceration, compensatory and punitive damages, and declaratory
judgment. [Id. at 10].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must review the
Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that
it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, § 1915A requires an initial
review of a “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and
the court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
1 According to the NCDAC Inmate Locator website, Plaintiff was convicted of First-Degree
Murder on December 10, 2019, and has been in NCDAC custody since December 11, 2019.
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 6

3
portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
“So-called sovereign citizens argue that, though they are born and
reside in the United States, they are their own sovereigns and are not United
States Citizens.” Pinckney v. U.S. Government – I.R.S., No. 2:19-3046-
BHH-BM, 2020 WL 3474011 (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2020) (citation omitted).
Sovereign Citizens, sometimes referred to as “free born Moors” or “Moorish
American,” “are widely recognized as a security threat group in prisons
because the group attempts to undermine governmental authority.” Love v.
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 6

4
N.C. Dep't of Public Safety, No. 5:19-cv-00075-MR, 2020 WL 6050583
(W.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2020). See e.g., Colar v. Heyns, No. 1:12-cv-1269, 2013
WL 141138, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2013) (“The ‘sovereign citizen
movement’ is well documented. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
classified ‘sovereign citizens’ as domestic terror threats because they are
anti-government extremists.”). The United States has not recognized the so-
called “Moorish Nation” as a sovereign. Id.; United States v. $7,000.00 in
United States Currency, 583 F.Supp.2d 725 (M.D.N.C. 2008).
Moreover, “Moorish Nation” and “Sovereign Citizen” arguments have
been universally rejected by the courts across this country. Plaintiff’s claim
that his incarceration is unlawful for lack of judicial, subject matter, and
personal jurisdiction due to his Moorish American citizenship and
subsequent denationalization is rejected. See United States v. White, 480
Fed. App'x 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding “no merit in [defendant's] claim
that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution because his
ancestors had been illegally seized and brought to the United States”);
United States v. Ulloa, 511 Fed. App'x 105, 106 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2013)
(“sovereign citizens are a loosely affiliated group who believe that the state
and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have
no authority to regulate their behavior”); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 6

5
1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (describing the “sovereign citizen” arguments as
having “no conceivable validity in American law”); United States v. Jagim,
978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that defendant's “sovereign
citizen” argument was “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous”).
Furthermore, any claim that Plaintiff is “not subject to the laws of North
Carolina because of [his] alleged Moorish nationality” is frivolous. See, e.g.,
El–Bey v. North Carolina, No. 5:11-CV-00423-FL, 2012 WL 368374, at *2
(E.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2012).
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The dismissal will be with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: April 20, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00090-MR Document 6 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 6