United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS
following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent
to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may
file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)
specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your
objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court
within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not
objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
Jermaine Duane Irvin (“Irvin”) began this case by
filing a pro se pleading that the Clerk of the Court
construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 2241. A summary of the petition is
extremely difficult. Irvin appears to object to the
Federal Bureau of Prison's characterization of his
nationality as “Black” when he is instead a
“Moorish-American.” He maintains that as a
“Moorish-American, ” he is not subject to the
laws of the United States of America. It appears to be his
contention that because he is not subject to the laws of the
United States of America, he was improperly incarcerated and
is being held in violation of his rights. He asks that he be
released from federal custody and awarded, inter
alia, three billion dollars in damages.
accompanied his petition with the pending motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket Entry
1. The undersigned is now called upon to address the motion.
undersigned begins by making note of two matters. First, all
pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Second,
although the fee filing provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act are inapplicable to cases filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2241, see Malave v. Hedrick, 271 F.3d 1139
(8th Cir. 2001), the undersigned is nevertheless
required to screen a petition filed pursuant to that section.
See Boyle v. Missouri, 2013 WL 5651394 (E.D.Mo.
2013). If it plainly appears that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief, the petition must be dismissed. See
Id. [citing Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Court as made applicable
to 28 U.S.C. 2241 petitions by Rule 1(b) thereof].
claim at bar mirrors the claim presented in Boyle v.
Missouri. There, United States District Judge Henry
Edward Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri found no
merit to the claim and dismissed the case sua
sponte. He did so for the following reason:
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2241. The Court will deny and dismiss the petition pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Pretrial detainee, Antoine Boyle, petitions the Court for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 2241, seeking his immediate
release from custody on sovereign immunity grounds.
Petitioner maintains that he is immune from prosecution for
violating any federal or state law because, as a free
Sovereign Moorish- American national of North American
Indigenous and Aboriginal Moors of the Ancient Moroccan
Empire born in America, he is not a subject to the State, nor
federal jurisdiction of the United States. Despite his
representations that he was born in the United States and
that his lawful domicile is in Missouri, he contrarily
asserts that he is under the jurisdiction of the Moorish
Nation, and submissive only to the Moorish Holy Temple of
Science-Free Moorish-American Zodiac Constitution. Thus, he
believes that when he was taken into custody, he was
“kidnapped” (unlawfully arrested) and being held
hostage by public servants of the United States of America.
Fatal to petitioner's assertion of immunity is the
non-recognition of the Moorish Nation as a sovereign state by
the United States. See Benton- El v. Odom, 2007 WL
1812615, at 6 (M .D.Ga. June 19, 2007); Osiris v.
Brown, 2005 WL 2044904, at 2 (D .N.J. Aug. 24, 2005);
Khattab El v. United States Justice Dept., 1988 WL
5117, at 2 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 22, 1988: see also, We
the People Beys and Els v. State of New York, 165 F.3d
16, 1998 WL 801875, at 1 (2d Cir. Nov. 12, 1998) (unpublished
opinion). Petitioner cannot unilaterally bestow sovereign
immunity upon himself. See United States v. Lumumba,
741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir.1984). Petitioner's purported
status as a Moorish-American citizen does not enable him to
violate state and federal laws without consequence.
Although petitioner does not claim to have made a formal
renunciation of nationality, it is of no import. Those who
have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship, like other
aliens, must obey the federal and applicable state laws, just
as native-born and naturalized citizens are required to do.
See Khattab, supra; Osiris,
supra; see also, Thorton-Bey v. United
States, 2009 WL 203502, at 2 (N.D.U1. Jan. 26, 2009);
Howell-El v. United States, 2006 WL 3076412, at 3
(S.D.Ill. Oct. 27, 2006).
such, the petition will be denied and dismissed. ...
Boyle v. Missouri, 2013 WL 5651394 at 1-2. Although the
case was dismissed sua sponte, Judge Autrey granted
Boyle's motion for leave to proceed in forma