UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHARLIE BAKER INC., )

Charles Wesley Baker, Auth. Rep., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:13 CV 21 JM

)

WELLS FARGO BANK, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

OPINION and ORDER

Charles W. Baker (as the document is signed) filed, pro se, an “Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum,” which purports to be a habeas petition

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (DE # 2.) The document contains nonsensical

assertions, including that Congress has granted Baker (or CHARLIE BAKER INC.) the

“international right” to “transfer energy, funds, and personal property from out of the

United States Department of Treasury into his private corporation account, as a fixture

filer, dba TRANSMITTING UTILITY PIPELINE . . . ” (Id. at 3.) These incomprehensible

statements aside, the crux of Baker’s claim appears to be that Wells Fargo Bank

improperly refused to honor a $10 billion check he tendered and then closed an account

he opened in the name of his corporation, CHARLIE BAKER INC. (Id. at 3-4, 10.) 

This claim cannot be brought in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; that

vehicle can only be used by persons “in custody” pursuant to the authority of the

United States who are challenging the lawfulness of their detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).

“In custody” means that one’s physical liberty or movement is being significantly
restrained. Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 717-18 (7th Cir. 2008). A dispute with a

private bank over a check would not fall into this category.

In addition, to the extent that Baker is attempting to file the petition/complaint

on behalf of a corporate entity named CHARLIE BAKER INC., it is beyond question

that corporations may only be represented in federal court by a licensed attorney.

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); Mendenhall v. Goldsmith, 59

F.3d 685, 687 n.1 (7th Cir. 1995). Baker does not appear on the Indiana Supreme Court’s

Roll of Attorneys and neither is he a member of this court’s bar. Thus, he cannot

represent CHARLIE BAKER, INC. in this court.

What’s more, Baker is a restricted filer who cannot bring any new civil cases until

he pays an outstanding fine imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. See Baker v. United States, No. 03-3450 (7th Cir. order dated Nov. 18,

2003). The sanction was imposed due to Baker’s incessant, frivolous filings over the

course of several years, including a mislabeled 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Id. at 1. It

appears Baker is attempting to evade the Circuit’s order by labeling this suit against a

private bank as a habeas corpus petition. This he cannot do. This action will be

dismissed, and Baker is admonished that future filings which attempt to evade the

restriction imposed by the Circuit may result in the imposition of additional sanctions.

For these reasons, the “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad

Subjiciendum” (DE # 2) is DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to any

2
claim CHARLIE BAKER INC. may have, as Baker lacks the authority to represent the

corporation in this court.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 7, 2013

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT