Moose v. Krueger

Filing 5

ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/10/2016. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 4 ) is DENIED. See full written Order & Opinion. (JS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 10 November, 2016 03:18:04 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
THIRPLUS MOOSE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
J.E. KRUEGER,
Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01403-JBM

ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from a
Judgment or Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc. 4). For the reasons
explained below, the motion is denied.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank robbery (Count 1),
armed bank robbery with forcible restraint (Count 2), and using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (Count 5). Petitioner was
sentenced by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to
a total of 420 months of incarceration.1 Under the terms of the plea agreement,
Petitioner waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, and the waiver was
upheld on direct appeal.

Petitioner received a 60 month sentence on Count 1 to be served concurrently with
Counts 2 and 5. Petitioner received a 300 month sentence on Count 2 to be served
consecutively with Count 5. Petitioner received a 120 month sentence on Count 5 to
be served consecutively with Count 2. This equals a total of 420 months of
incarceration.

1

Petitioner then filed three petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01296-JES (C.D. Ill. Aug. 19,
2016); Moose v. United States, No. 16-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill Sept. 28, 2016); Moose v.

Krueger, No. 16-cv-01403 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2016). All three argued that the United
States did not have jurisdiction over him during his arrest, sentencing, and
confinement because the “Governor of Missouri Republic must consent to cession of
jurisdiction.” (Doc. 2 at 3). All were denied, because it is clearly established that the
laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders, including Petitioner.

United States v. Phillips, 326 F. App’x 400, 400 (7th Cir. 2009). Petitioner was warned
after his second habeas petition that he would receive sanctions if he filed another
“sovereign citizen” habeas petition. (Doc. 2 at 7). Petitioner failed to heed the Court’s
warning and his third petition resulted in Petitioner receiving sanctions for his
frivolous filings. Id.
On November 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s decision in his third habeas petition. He asserts that he did not file another
“sovereign citizen” habeas petition. (Doc. 4 at 1). Rather, he asserts that his petition
only stated that “the United States [did] not hav[e] criminal jurisdiction over the
lands of where the alleged crime(s) occurred . . . . By not filing a notice of acceptance
with the Governor of State.” Whether Petitioner choses to use the term “sovereign
citizen” or not, that is precisely what Petitioner’s claims are. United States v. Davis,
545 F. App’x 513, 518 (7th Cir. 2013) (“And, finally, [defendant] argues . . . that the
district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case. That
contention reflection his ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs and is frivolous.”).

2

Additionally, Petitioner asserts that he is not challenging the Court’s current
jurisdiction over him, but rather that the “land and/or property where the underlying
incident allegedly occurred, [does not lie] within the criminal jurisdiction of federal
courts under 18 U.S.C. § 3112(a).” (Doc. 4 at 2). The Court rejected this argument in
its Order because the laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders.

United States v. Phillips, 326 F. App’x 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (“This argument is
frivolous: a district court has personal jurisdiction over any defendant brought before
it on a federal indictment charging a violation of federal law.”).
Petitioner’s Motion does not assert under which rule he is bringing his Motion
for Reconsideration. Because he filed within twenty-eight days of the Court’s denial
of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court considers his Motion for
Reconsideration to be one under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
A request to alter or amend judgment filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) may only be
granted if a movant clearly establishes that the court made a manifest error of law
or fact, or presents newly discovered evidence. LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust

Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995)). A manifest error is the “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro.

Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
movant may not advance in a Rule 59(e) motion arguments he should have raised
before judgment was entered. Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, Ill., 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th
Cir. 2007). Petitioner does not establish here a manifest error of law or fact or present
any newly discovered evidence. Courts have original jurisdiction over “all offenses
against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v.

3

Hornback, Nos. 3:10-CR-13-DCR-REW, 3:13-CV-7296-DCR-REW, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 83586, *24 (E.D. Ky. May 6, 2014) (citing United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d
947, 953 (9th Cir. 1992)) (“This argument is patently meritless. Federal courts have
exclusive jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States under 18
U.S.C. § 3231 and the permission of the states is not a prerequisite to that
jurisdiction.”).
Furthermore, Petitioner’s argument that there was no jurisdiction pursuant to
40 U.S.C. § 3312 does not prove that there was a manifest error of law. Section 3312
establishes laws for creating federal land. Petitioner was arrested for conspiring to
rob a bank, which was not located on federal land. Therefore, 40 U.S.C. § 3312 has no
application here. See Hornback at *27 n. 11; see also Thomas v. United States, Nos.
8:13-CV-215-T-15Map, 8:07-CR-203-T-27MAP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130123, at *2
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2013) (finding a similar claim “completely frivolous” and that §
3112 has “nothing to do” with cases, like here, whose jurisdiction rests on § 3231).
The Court did not make a manifest error of law; therefore, Petitioner failed to satisfy
the requirements for a Rule 59 Motion for Reconsideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 4) is DENIED.

Entered this _10th__ day of November, 2016.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge

4