United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
ORDER & OPINION
BILLY McDADE, United States Senior District Judge
matter before the Court is Petitioner, Thirplus Tino Moose
Bey's, “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Writ
of Habeas Corpus.” For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner's Request for Writ (Doc. 1) is denied.
Furthermore, Petitioner is sanctioned $500 for filing another
frivolous habeas petition against this Court's previous
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank robbery (Count
1), armed bank robbery with forcible restraint (Count 2), and
using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a
crime of violence (Count 5). Petitioner was sentenced by the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri to a total of 420 months of
incarceration. Under the terms of the plea agreement,
Petitioner waived his right to appeal his conviction or
sentence, and the waiver was upheld on direct appeal.
August 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Moose v.
United States, No. 16-cv-01296-JES (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19,
2016). The petition raised several challenges to the
jurisdiction of the United States to indict, sentence, or
imprison him; all of the challenges were based on his status
as a “Private Aboriginal Indigenous Moorish American
National . . . of sentient capacity . . . .”
August 19, 2016, the Court denied Petitioner's frivolous
petition, because the laws of the United States apply to all
persons within its borders. Id. (citing United
States v. Phillips, 326 F.App'x 400 (7th Cir. 2009)
(noting that district courts have jurisdiction over
defendants brought on charges of violations of federal law
and rejecting “sovereign citizen” arguments as
September 15, 2016, less than a month after the Court
rejected Petitioner's § 2241 claim, Petitioner filed
an “Emergency Petition for Constitutional Writ of
Habeas Corpus” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
Again, Petitioner made frivolous “sovereign
citizen” claims. Again, the Court denied Petitioner's
claims. Additionally, the Court warned Petitioner that making
future “sovereign citizen” claims would result in
the type of sanctions imposed by the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312,
315 (7th Cir. 1997). Moose v. United States, No.
16-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2016).
days after receiving his warning from the Court, on October
17, 2016, Petitioner filed this current habeas corpus
Petition. Again, his Petition consists of “sovereign
citizen” ramblings that are nonsensical and contain no
legal merit. Again he claims that there was no jurisdiction
over him during his arrest, sentencing, or confinement
because he believes that the “Governor of Missouri
Republic must consent to cession of jurisdiction.” (Doc
1 at 6).
se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held
to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam); Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d
615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014). However, a court must still decide
whether a petition adequately presents the legal and factual
basis for a claim. Id.
petitioner may seek habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, 2254, or 2255, depending on the circumstances.
Petitioner has filed his petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, but does not specify the type of relief he seeks.
This Court, in its discretion, applies the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts to
all cases that purport to be brought under Chapter 153 of
Title 28 of the United States Code that are not explicitly
brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255.
See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, R 1(b); see also Poe v. United
States, 468 F.3d 473, 477 n. 6 (7th Cir. 2006);
Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill.
1996) (holding Rule 4 takes precedence over 28 U.S.C. §
2243's deadlines and gives a court discretion to set
deadlines). This includes Rule 4, which requires that the
Court “promptly examine” the Petition, and
dismiss it if it “plainly appears . . . that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Pursuant to Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, the Court has examined the Petition
and determined Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus
claiming he is a “sovereign citizen, ” the
Petitioner has provided no legal claims on which to proceed
for a habeas petition and his petition must be denied. For at
least 25 years, courts have summarily rejected claims by
sovereign citizens. See United States v. Benabe, 654
F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases that reject
the “sovereign citizen” argument as frivolous).
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has
instructed district courts to “summarily reject”
the “worn argument that a defendant is
sovereign.” Moose, No. 16-cv-01296-JES (citing
Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767). Petitioner insists that
the courts had no jurisdiction over him because the Governor
of Missouri did not give consent or cessation to the United
States Government. (Doc. 1-1 at 19). However, it has been
clearly established that the laws of the United States apply
to all persons within its borders and this includes the
Petitioner. Phillips, 326 F.App'x at 400.
See also Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767 (announcing that
regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent,
that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts);
United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th
Cir. 1990) (explaining ...