Case 5:15-cv-00108-RWS-CMC Document 14 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 76
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`KARIM MATEEN
`
`v.
`
`LT. J. WILLIAMS, ET AL.
`
` §
`
` §
`
` §
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv108
`
`MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`The Plaintiff Karim Mateen, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action complaining of alleged
`
`violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate
`
`Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local
`
`Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
`
`The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee of $400.00 or file an
`
`application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a certified in forma pauperis data
`
`sheet, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). In response, Plaintiff filed a document which he styled
`
`as a “notice of appointment - special deposit.” This document purported to appoint the Magistrate
`
`Judge and the United States District Judge as his “trustees” and directed the Court to make a
`
`payment of two million dollars to Plaintiff’s “accounts receivable.” Plaintiff also ordered the
`
`collection of $1,840,000.00 from each of the named Defendants in the case, the amount he requested
`
`in damages, and attached “affidavits of individual surety” and a purported bond for the payment of
`
`the sum allegedly due him.
`
`After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending Plaintiff’s
`
`lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Magistrate Judge determined
`
`Plaintiff’s documents offered no valid justification for his failure to obey the in forma pauperis
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00108-RWS-CMC Document 14 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 77
`
`order, and his purported appointment of judicial officers as “trustees” and the alleged two million
`
`dollar “bond” have no legal significance.
`
`Shortly after the Report issued, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court stating he is the “cestui
`
`que” and his not waiving his rights.1 He demands an “extinguishment” and a full accounting of
`
`$1,840,000.00 by an award of this amount to the grantor/beneficiary, presumably himself. He gives
`
`the court 30 days to “acquiesce in total accord with this Letter Rogatory, or show cause as to why
`
`the trustees are not able to comply.”
`
`In a “Notice of Special Deposit,” construed as objections, Plaintiff states his appearance is
`
`restricted, special, and private, not general. He attaches a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, on
`
`which he has written “Non-negotiable. For special deposit for the benefit of Karim Mateen to the
`
`order of Caroline M. Craven (or successor) to extinguish, benefit, use, enjoyment and other equitable
`
`relief I am entitled to. Dated December 14, 2015. Special and private. /s/ Karim Mateen, Grantor.”
`
`Following this, Plaintiff wrote another letter to the Court saying his appearance is restricted
`
`and not general and he is the cestui que enforcing his equitable rights of recoupment and
`
`enforcement over his claim in this “court of equity.” He again demands extinguishment, use,
`
`possession and enjoyment, and all of the equitable relief to which he is entitled.
`
`Plaintiff states he gives notice the Court is in breach of the trust and he takes “judicial notice
`
`of your oath of officer and your surety bond in exclusive equity.” Failure to do a conversion or
`
`present conveyance will result in Plaintiff claiming the bond in the amount of 50 million dollars, and
`
`he demands the Court “do the recoupment and manage the account in equity.”
`
`None of Plaintiff’s pleadings provide any valid basis for setting aside the Magistrate Judge’s
`
`Report. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has observed attempts to
`
`satisfy liabilities from “an imaginary Treasury trust account” have no basis in law and meaningless
`
` 1A “cestui que trust” is the beneficiary of a trust. See, e.g., Vidal v. Girard’s
`Executors, 43 U.S. 127, 186, 2 How. 127, 11 L.Ed. 205 (1844)(opinion of the Court) and id. at
`174 (argument of Daniel Webster, counsel for appellant); Restatement (1st) of Trusts, §3, Special
`Note (1935).
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-00108-RWS-CMC Document 14 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 78
`
`pieces of paper which claim to create vast sums of money are not commercially acceptable forms
`
`of payment. United States v. Haines, civil action no. C13-5082, 2013 WL 3354421 (W.D.Wash.,
`
`July 3, 2013); see also Rivera v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. 644, 645 (Fed.Cl. 2012) (rejecting theory
`
`of secret trust account held by the federal government), citing Bryant v. Washington Mutual Bank,
`
`524 F.Supp.2d 753, 758-59 (W.D.Va. 2007). Plaintiff has offered no legitimate justification for his
`
`failure to comply with the in forma pauperis order and has failed to prosecute his lawsuit.
`
`The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
`
`proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
`
`(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
`
`proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
`
`the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s objections
`
`are without merit. It is accordingly
`
`ORDERED the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
`
`(docket no. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
`
`ORDERED the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
`
`failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is further
`
`ORDERED any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
`
`DENIED.
`
`3
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of February, 2016.