Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01934/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01934-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVARISTUS MACKEY,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-1934-LJO-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Evaristus Mackey, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

this case on December 30, 2015, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint1is difficult to understand. Distilled, however, Plaintiff’s complaint only 

alleges Defendants, various prison officials, violated his rights because Defendants lack jurisdiction and 

authority over him because he is a “sovereign citizen” who is entitled to “sovereign immunity” from 

their disciplinary actions. For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s complaint because it is legally frivolous. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Screening requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court 

must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally frivolous, 

malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a 

 

1

Plaintiff has since filed three additional “supplements” to his original complaint, which the Court construes as part of 

Plaintiff’s complaint. Docs. 7, 9, 15. The Court will refer to these four documents collectively as Plaintiff’s complaint.

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-

(iii). If an action is dismissed on one of these three basis, a strike is imposed per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

An inmate who has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and has not alleged imminent danger of 

serious physical injury does not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Richey 

v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015). 

B. Plaintiff’s complaint is legally frivolous.

Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated various federal laws when disciplining him and denying his 

requests. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendants’ disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in, among 

other things, his placement in the “Special Management Unit,” amounted to unlawful “sanctions.” See 

Doc. 1 at 12. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have no authority to discipline him in the manner that 

they did because he is a “sovereign citizen” with “sovereign immunity” from their jurisdiction and 

authority. See, e.g., id. (concluding that Defendants have no jurisdiction “to impose sanctions on a 

Sovereign Citizen asserting Sovereign Immunity”); Doc. 9 at 7 (concluding “Sovereign Immunity is 

asserted throughout this case [and] the defendants don’t have authority to impose sanctions but have.”). 

Plaintiff does not argue Defendants’ conduct was otherwise unlawful.

Courts across the country “have uniformly rejected arguments” based on the sovereign citizen 

ideology as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible. United States v. Staten, No. 1:10-cr-179, 2012 WL 

2389871, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2012) (collecting cases). The Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments 

premised on the ideology as “utterly meritless.” See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th 

Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to state any claim on which relief could 

be granted. Given the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot cure the 

issues through amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that (1) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim; and (2) Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. 3, 

13) are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01934-LJO-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 3