Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02191/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02191-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1 

17cv2191-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEREMIAH EZEKIEL, 

Petitioner,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 17cv2191-MMA (MDD) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 On May 10, 2017, Petitioner Jeremiah Ezekiel was charged in a single-count 

Information with attempted illegal reentry, in violation of Title 8, United States Code, 

section 1326(a) and (b). See Case No. 17cr1195-WQH, Doc. No. 9. The case remains 

pending. Ezekiel, proceeding pro se, has filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus (“petition”) pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2241, 

challenging the authority of the United States government to arrest and incarcerate him. 

See Doc. No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the petition. 

Case 3:17-cv-02191-MMA-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17cv2191-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is 

required to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.1

 “If it 

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to 

relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 

see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Challenges to the “manner, 

location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in 

the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 

curiam). 

A review of the petition reveals that Ezekiel complains that as a member of the 

independent American Aboriginal “United Washita De Dugdahmounyah Mu’ur” nation, 

the United States government lacks the jurisdiction and authority to arrest and incarcerate 

him. Ezekiel’s petition is subject to dismissal on several grounds. 

First, relief under Section 2241 is available only if a federal inmate can show he is 

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Ezekiel has not done so. Any tribal sovereignty belonging to the 

United Washita Tribe “does not extend to shield [Defendant] from the legal consequences 

of [his] own private off-reservation activities.” Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court 

Cases, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1178 (D. Utah 2006). As another district court in this 

Circuit has noted, “[r]egardless of his citizenship or tribal membership, Defendant 

voluntary subjected himself to the laws of the United States when he presented himself 

for inspection at the San [Ysidro] Port of Entry.” United States v. StowbunenkoSaitschenko, No. CR 06-0869-PHX-DGC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20137, at *4 (D. Ariz. 

Mar. 19, 2007) (citing United States v. Beitia-Garcia, 794 F. Supp. 36 (D.P.R. 1991) 

(holding that the defendant had subjected herself to federal law because she voluntarily 

                                               

1

 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 

at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Case 3:17-cv-02191-MMA-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17cv2191-MMA (MDD) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

chose to enter the United States)); see also United States v. Masat, 948 F.2d 923, 934 (5th 

Cir. 1992) (rejecting as “frivolous” defendant’s argument that he is a “freeman” and thus 

not subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction). 

Second, the Supreme Court has interpreted the “in custody” requirement to mean 

that the petitioner is in custody pursuant to the conviction or sentence under attack at the 

time the petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Ezekiel has not 

yet been convicted or sentenced in his criminal proceeding. If Ezekiel wishes to 

challenge the government’s authority to bring charges against him, or the Court’s 

jurisdiction, he may do so via separate motion in his criminal case. 

CONCLUSION

It plainly appears from the face of Ezekiel’s petition that Ezekiel is not entitled to 

relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Accordingly, the Court 

DISMISSES the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave 

to amend. See Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (petition for habeas 

corpus may be dismissed without leave to amend if “it appears that no tenable claim for 

relief can be pleaded were such leave granted.”). The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter 

judgment accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 15, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-02191-MMA-MDD Document 8 Filed 12/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3