1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LUTHER MCCASKILL, 

 

Petitioner, Case Number 4:15-cv-11335 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

 

J.A. TERRIS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C § 2241; (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE 

OF APPEALABILITY; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S 

“MOTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE”

 On April 13, 2015, Petitioner Luther McCaskill (“McCaskill”), a federal 

inmate incarcerated at FCI Milan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus. He also filed a “Motion for Specific Performance” on May 8, 2015, in 

which he asks the Court to expeditiously rule on his petition. The petition, as best 

the Court can discern, asserts that the Bureau of Prisons cannot hold McCaskill 

because he is no longer a “person” as defined by federal law, and therefore is no 

longer subject to any man-made laws. The Court finds the claim frivolous. 

Therefore, the Court is summarily denying his habeas petition and is denying his 

motion as moot.

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 79
2 

I. Background 

 In 2004, following a jury trial before the Honorable George Caram Steeh, 

McCaskill was convicted of wire fraud, possession of a forged security, and 

conspiracy.1

 United States v. McCaskill, No. 02-80216 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 

2004); see also United States v. McCaskill, 202 F. App’x 70 (6th Cir. 2006). Judge 

Steeh sentenced McCaskill to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 60 

months, and 68 months, for a total custodial term of 188 months. Id. The Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed McCaskill’s convictions and sentence. 

McCaskill, 202 F. App’x 70. He has since filed a motion for post-conviction relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied. McCaskill v. United States, Nos. 

02-80216, 08-10812, 2008 WL 2947880 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2008). 

II. Standard of Review 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a 

cause of action under federal law or it may be summarily dismissed. See Perez v. 

 

1 McCaskill had been previously convicted by a jury of conspiracy, possessing and 

uttering forged checks, bank fraud, interstate transportation of forged checks, and 

engaging in monetary transactions with criminally derived property of a value 

greater than $10,000. United States v. McCaskill, No. 00-80239 (E.D. Mich. July 

3, 2001); aff’d 62 F. App’x 71, 72 (6th Cir. 2003). Judge Bernard E. Friedman, 

assigned to the case, sentenced McCaskill to a term of imprisonment of 33 months. 

McCaskill, 62 F. App’x at 72. The Court presumes that McCaskill has since 

completed that sentence and that his current motion relates to the sentence he is 

serving on the case tried before Judge Steeh. 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 80
3 

Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citing Marmol v. 

Dubois, 855 F. Supp. 444, 446 (D. Mass. 1994)). Federal courts are authorized to 

dismiss any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. 

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Summary dismissal also is 

available if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits attached 

to it that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke, 

178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In fact, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that the district courts 

have a duty to screen out any habeas corpus petition which lacks merit on its face. 

Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970). No response to a habeas 

petition is necessary when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacks merit, or 

where the necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself without 

consideration of a response by the State. Id. 

III. Discussion

McCaskill’s petition must be summarily dismissed because it fails to raise a 

substantial federal claim and is frivolous.

 By way of written declarations and UCC Financing Statements attached to 

his petition, McCaskill seeks to decouple his physical being from his legal status, 

and thereby win his freedom from imprisonment. The Court understands 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 81
4 

McCaskill to be arguing that Respondent has authority to hold him in custody only 

so long as McCaskill acquiesces to the authority of the United States. Now that 

McCaskill is asserting his rights as a “living human being, eternal essence, duly 

deposited, domiciled, and completely factualized body” (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 8), he 

claims he can no longer be held in custody. 

 Not surprisingly, a prisoner cannot write his own get-out-of-jail-free card by 

making declarations that amount to a renunciation of his obligation to conform his 

conduct to the requirements of the nation’s criminal laws. See, e.g., Van Hazel v. 

Luoma, No. 05-cv-73401, 2005 WL 2837356, at *2 (E.D. Mich. October 27, 2005) 

(“Petitioner cannot divest the State of Michigan of jurisdiction to prosecute him of 

a criminal offense simply by declaring a security interest in himself pursuant to the 

Uniform Commercial Code or having another person do so.”); Kerr v. Hedrick, 89 

F. App'x 962, 963 (6th Cir. 2004) (rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he was 

exempt from punishment for his federal crimes because his rights derived 

exclusively from the Moorish Science Temple of America); United States v. 

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that despite the defendant’s 

contention that she was an absolute, freeborn and natural individual, she was a 

“person” under the Internal Revenue Code and thus subject to prosecution for 

willful failure to file tax returns); State v. Arnold, 379 N.W. 2d 322, 323 (S.D. 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 82
5 

1986) (holding that the trial court had jurisdiction over the criminal defendant, 

even though the defendant had declared natural individual sovereignty and 

declared the revocation of his marriage license, birth certificate, limited liability for 

perpetual succession of debt and credit, and social security indentures); United 

States v. Williams, 532 F. Supp. 319, 320 (D. N.J. 1981) (rejecting the defendant’s 

claim that federal government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he 

claimed to be a citizen of the “Republic of New Afrika,” finding that this was not a 

sovereign nation recognized by the United States, but was, at most, a separatist 

movement). Additionally, the Uniform Commercial Code is totally inapplicable to 

criminal proceedings and cannot bar jurisdiction over a criminal defendant. See

United States v. Humphrey, 287 F. 3d 422, 435 (6th Cir. 2002); overruled on other 

grounds by United States v. Leachman, 309 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2002); see also

United States v. Holloway, 11 F. App'x 398, 400 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) 

(indicating that any contention that the Uniform Commercial Code presents a 

potential defense would be frivolous, as the code is not applicable in criminal 

proceedings). 

 For these reasons, the Court finds that McCaskill’s current petition is 

frivolous, and it therefore will be summarily denied. His motion for immediate 

consideration of his petition therefore will be denied as moot. Before McCaskill 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 83
6 

can appeal this decision, he must obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Greene v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corrections, 265 F.3d 369, 372 

(6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a state prisoner who seeks habeas corpus relief under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 must obtain a certificate of appealability to bring an appeal). 

“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a). 

Section 2253 states, in pertinent part, that “[a] certificate of appealability may 

issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole 

Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1073 (6th Cir. 1997). 

When a district court denies a habeas petition on the merits of the claims 

presented, a certificate may issue if the petitioner demonstrates that reasonable 

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For the reasons 

stated above, McCaskill’s claims are frivolous and thus reasonable jurors would 

not find the Court’s assessment of those claims debatable or wrong. The Court 

also denies Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis because any appeal would 

be frivolous and thus would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 

(“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 84
7 

that it is not taken in good faith.”); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445-

46 (1962) (interpreting “good faith” in § 1915 to mean “not frivolous”). 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED 

WITH PREJUDICE; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a certificate 

of appealability; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion for Specific 

Performance is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 2, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 2, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-11335-LVP-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 85