Edward Trevino v. The State of Florida


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Edward Barreiro Trevino. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Download PDF
Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-15389 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-02036-CEM-DAB EDWARD BARREIRO TREVINO, In Propria Persona, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 2 Courthouse Square #2000, Kissimmee, FL 34741, d.b.a. Leslie A. Hess, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 4, 2017) Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Edward Trevino, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. After review, 1 we affirm. I. DISCUSSION Trevino’s legal arguments, including that Florida has no jurisdiction over him because he is a “natural born, free . . . [l]iving, breathing, flesh and blood human [being]” and that he must be released because Florida breached a security agreement with him, are frivolous. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (“A claim is frivolous if and only if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” (quotation omitted)); United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that so-called “sovereign citizens” are individuals who believe they are not subject to courts’ jurisdiction and that courts have summarily rejected their legal theories as frivolous); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases and noting that a court should summarily reject arguments that a person is beyond a court’s jurisdiction because he is a “sovereign citizen,” “secured-party creditor,” or “flesh-and-blood human 1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), mindful of the fact that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). 2 Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 3 of 3 being”). In addition, Trevino’s factual allegations that he is a party to some sort of secured transaction requiring Florida to release him are clearly baseless. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). If Trevino seeks to challenge his conviction, habeas corpus, and not § 1983, is the proper avenue. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 81 (2005). Finally, leave to amend the complaint would have been futile because a more carefully drafted complaint could not save Trevino’s claims. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed . . . .”). II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?