Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01695-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD E. MARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEFFREY A. WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01695-OWW-TAG HC 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS AND DENY PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DENY ALL

PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docs. 1, 14, 15, 16, & 17)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1). The petition

alleges that on November 21, 2002, Petitioner was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1956(h) (conspiracy to launder money), and also 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) (laundering of

monetary instruments and aiding and abetting), in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California, Sacramento Division. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner was sentenced to a prison

term of eighty-one months. (Id.). Petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction and sentence. (Id. at p. 2). 

Subsequently, Petitioner filed a motion in the sentencing court to vacate or void the judgment

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4). (Id.). Petitioner alleges that the

District Court has never ruled on said motion. (Id.). 

On September 25, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion in the sentencing court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. (Id. at p. 5). The District Court

denied the motion on October 4, 2005. (Id.). 

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 7
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

2

Petitioner now brings this habeas petition alleging the following grounds for relief:

(1) Petitioner’s conviction was unconstitutional because, as a citizen of the “Sovereign Republic

of California,” Petitioner was not “under the authority or obligation of the federal government

except for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States”; (2) the prosecution failed

to present evidence that Petitioner “violated the Constitution or a law of the United States

pursuant thereof,” because the United States Code under which Petitioner was convicted does not

apply to Petitioner since it is a “territorial ‘Act of Congress’” inapplicable to citizens of the

sovereign states; and (3) the prosecution never provided evidence of “personal, legislative

(subject-matter) or territorial jurisdiction authority over petitioner,” who is a “citizen of a

sovereign State of the Union.” (Doc. 1, pp. 6-10). In conjunction with the petition, Petitioner

has filed a motion for discovery (Doc. 14), a request for identity and status determination (Doc.

15), a request for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16), and a Show Cause Motion “demanding” that

cause be shown why the petition has not already been ruled upon. (Doc. 17). 

As indicated more fully below, the Court determines that Petitioner is challenging his

conviction, and therefore the claim should have been brought in the sentencing court as a motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, additionally, even were this a proper habeas petition,

Petitioner’s claims are entirely frivolous and, thus, this petition should be summarily denied on

the merits. Thus, the Court will recommend that the instant petition be both dismissed and

denied, and that the pending motions be dismissed as moot.

REVIEW OF CLAIMS

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition

“[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition...that the petition is not entitled to relief.” 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, it is the duty of the Court

to screen out frivolous applications and to eliminate the burden that would be placed on the

respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.

1970); see Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v.

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). The

petitioner shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds specified and

shall state the relief requested. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A petition

may be dismissed if the factual allegations are so palpably incredible or so patently frivolous or

false as to warrant summary dismissal. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 78 (1977).

DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner Must Challenge His Conviction With Motion Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

A federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity or constitutionality of his

conviction or sentence must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988); Thompson v.

Smith, 719 F.2d 938, 940 (8th Cir.1983); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3rd 1997);

Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1981). In such cases, only the sentencing

court has jurisdiction. Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d at 1163. A prisoner may not collaterally

attack a federal conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991); Tripati v.

Henman, 843 F.2d at 1162; see also United States v. Flores, 616 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir. 1980). 

In contrast, a federal prisoner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that

sentence's execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1123 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Tubwell, 37 F.3d

175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n.5 (2nd Cir. 1991);

United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893-894 (6th Cir. 1991); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476,

478-479 (3rd Cir. 1991); United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185, 186-187 (8th Cir. 1987);

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980). 

In this case, Petitioner is clearly challenging the validity and constitutionality of his

conviction rather than an error in the administration or execution of his sentence. Therefore, the

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

appropriate procedure would be to file a motion pursuant to § 2255, not a habeas petition

pursuant to § 2241. Although Petitioner has filed his petition on a form indicating it is pursuant

to § 2241, a petition contending Petitioner's sentence is invalid is still a § 2255 petition

regardless of what Petitioner calls the petition. See United States v. Brown, 610 F.2d at 677. 

In rare situations, a federal prisoner authorized to seek relief under § 2255 may seek relief

under § 2241 if he can show the remedy available under § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective

to test the validity of his detention." United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.1997)

(quoting § 2255). Although there is little guidance from any court on when § 2255 is an

inadequate or ineffective remedy, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that it is a very narrow

exception. Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d

at 299; Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (a court’s denial of a prior § 2255 motion is

insufficient to render § 2255 inadequate.); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d at 1162-1163 (9th Cir.

1988) (a petitioner's fears of bias or unequal treatment do not render a § 2255 petition

inadequate); Williams v. Heritage, 250 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.1957); Hildebrandt v. Swope, 229 F.2d

582 (9th Cir.1956). 

The Ninth Circuit has also provided little guidance on what actually constitutes

“inadequate and ineffective” in relation to the savings clause. It has acknowledged that “[other]

circuits, however, have held that § 2255 provides an "inadequate or ineffective" remedy (and thus

that the petitioner may proceed under § 2241) when the petitioner claims to be: (1) factually

innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted; and, (2) has never had an "unobstructed

procedural shot" at presenting this claim.” Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d at 1059-1060, citing 

Lorentsen v. Hood, 223 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The burden is

on the petitioner to show that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective. Redfield v. United States,

315 F.2d 76, 83 (9th Cir. 1963).

In his petition, Petitioner has not alleged that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective. 

Petitioner makes no claim that he is either factually innocent or that he has not has an

“unobstructed procedural shot” at presenting his arguments in the District Court for the District

of Eastern District of California. Rather, Petitioner contends that the District Court lacked

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 4 of 7
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

A motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to § 2255 must be filed in the court where petitioner 1

was originally sentenced. In this case, Petitioner challenges a sentence adjudicated in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. Thus, the Sacramento Division of this court would

be the proper venue for filing a motion pursuant to § 2255.

5

jurisdiction over him during the criminal proceedings based upon his status as a citizen of a

sovereign state. Although Petitioner has previously filed a motion under § 2255 that was denied

in the trial court, as mentioned, the mere fact that a previous § 2255 motion was denied does not

render § 2255 inadequate. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. at 5. Hence, should Petitioner wish to

pursue this claim in federal court, he must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Since Petitioner is challenging his 1

conviction and sentence, the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that no relief under

§ 2241 can be afforded.

B. Petitioner’s Claims Are Frivolous.

Even if the petition could be construed as challenging the execution of Petitioner’s

sentence rather than the conviction itself, the claims would have to be denied summarily as

frivolous. The gravamen of the petition is that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over

Petitioner in his criminal case because, as a citizen of the “Sovereign State of California,”

Petitioner was not subject to criminal prosecution for charges arising under the United States

Code. Petitioner’s claims are frivolous.

It is beyond dispute that the United States District Court has original jurisdiction,

exclusive of the courts of the States, over all offenses against the laws of the United States,

including those in the United States Code. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. In United States v. Tuuri, 26 F.3d

135 (9th Cir. 1994), 1994 WL 242125, *1, the Ninth Circuit rejected as frivolous a defendant’s

claim that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to require him to produce tax documents because

he was not a citizen of the United States but rather a citizen only of the “California Republic.”

Other federal courts, considering similar claims of lack of jurisdiction regarding citizens of

various “sovereign” states, have reached identical conclusions. E.g., United States v. Lorenzo,

995 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993)(in tax evasion case, defendants’ contention that, as citizens of the

“Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii,” they were not subject to federal court’s jurisdiction was

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

without merit); United States v. Rhoiney, 2002 WL 31987473, *3 (D.Kan. Dec. 17, 2002)

(defendant’s claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him for narcotics offenses

because he is a resident of the “sovereign” State of Kansas was frivolous); United States v.

George, 127 F.3d 1107, 1997 WL 669900, *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 1997)(defendant’s claim of lack

of jurisdiction to prosecute him for narcotics offenses because he is a citizen of the “Sovereign

State of Oregon” was frivolous); United States v. Price, 798 F.2d 111, 112 (5th Cir. 1986)(in tax

evasion case, defendant’s claim of “special status” as citizen of Texas such that he was not

subject to federal laws had “no legal merit”). 

 Similarly, here, Petitioner’s contention that he is outside the jurisdictional reach of both

the federal courts and the laws of the United States, as codified in the United States Code, by

virtue of being a citizen of the “sovereign” state of California, is entirely frivolous and without

legal basis. Thus, on the merits, Petitioner’s claims should be summarily denied.

Because the Court is recommending dismissal and denial of Petitioner’s claims, the Court

further recommends denial of all pending motions as moot.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), be DISMISSED because

Petitioner’s claim does not allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, and DENIED because his claims are frivolous; and

2. That Petitioner’s pending motion for discovery (Doc. 14), request for identity and

status (Doc. 15), request for evidentiary hearing (Doc. 16), and show cause motion

(Doc. 17), all be DENIED as moot.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” Replies

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the Objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Judge. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01695-OWW -TAG Document 18 Filed 05/18/07 Page 7 of 7