Ellis v. Krueger

Filing 2

ORDER & OPINION denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241). Civil Case Terminated. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/21/2016. (RK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 21 November, 2016 11:31:23 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
MAURICE ELLIS,
Petitioner,
v.
J.E. KRUEGER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01437-JBM

ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Maurice Ellis’s “Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the
reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with intent to distribute in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). J. (Doc. 29), United States v.
Maurice Ellis, No. 1:15-cr-10060-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2016). This Court
sentenced Petitioner to 180 months of imprisonment. Id. at 2.
On November 9, 2016, Petitioner filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Ad Subjiciendum.” (Doc. 1). He claims that he is being unlawfully held because “the
United States did not have jurisdiction over lands of where the alleged crime(s)
occurred.” Id. at 2. Petitioner further claims that the “United States had not sought
criminal jurisdiction over the lands and/or property of where the alleged crime(s)
occurred pursuant to Title 40 U.S.C. Section 3112; Article 1, Section 8, Clause II of

the U.S. Const.; Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Const.; Tenth Amendment; Title 18
U.S.C. Section 5; Title 18 U.S.C. 7(3); Title 18 U.S.C. § 13(a).” Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014).
However, a court must still decide whether a petition adequately presents the legal
and factual basis for a claim. Id.
This Court, in its discretion, applies the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts to all cases that purport to be brought under
Chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code that are not explicitly brought
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, R 1(b); see also Poe v. United States, 468 F.3d 473, 477
n. 6 (7th Cir. 2006); Hudson v. Helman, 948 F. Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (holding
Rule 4 takes precedence over 28 U.S.C. § 2243’s deadlines and gives court discretion
to set deadlines). This includes Rule 4, which requires that the Court “promptly
examine” the Petition, and dismiss it if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief.”
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, the Court has examined the Petition and determined
Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

2

ANALYSIS
Petitioner has provided no legal claims on which to proceed for a habeas
petition and his petition must be denied. Although not explicitly stated, Petitioner’s
writ of habeas corpus can be construed as a “sovereign citizen” claim. Sovereign
citizens claim that the United States did not have jurisdiction over their crimes and
list a variety of legal citations to support their claims. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has instructed district courts to “summarily reject”
the “worn argument that a defendant is sovereign.” United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d
753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases that reject the “sovereign citizen” argument
as frivolous).
Sovereign citizen claims are summarily rejected, because it has been clearly
established that the laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders
and this includes the Petitioner. United States v. Phillips, 326 F. App’x 400, 400 (7th
Cir. 2009). See also Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767 (announcing that regardless of an
individual’s claimed status of descent, that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of
the courts); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990)
(explaining that “sovereign citizen” arguments have “no conceivable validity in
American law).
Furthermore, district courts have original jurisdiction over “all offenses
against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231; see also United States v.
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

3

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.”).
Petitioner lists a series of citations to provide support for why the Court did
not have jurisdiction to try Petitioner and for why the United States did not have
criminal jurisdiction over him. As explained below, each of his citations is meritless.
Petitioner’s citation 40 U.S.C. § 3312 to support a lack of jurisdiction is
meritless. Section 3312 establishes laws for acquiring federal land from states.
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).
Likewise, Petitioner’s citation to Article I, Section 8, of the United States
Constitution to support a lack of jurisdiction is likewise meritless. Article I, Section
8 is the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” which gives Congress the power to “make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the
United States . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. This is the precise portion of the
Constitution which gave Congress the authority to pass 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which gives
the district courts original jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the
United States.” United States v. Owens, No. 1:08CR89, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7945,
at *12-13 (N.D. W.V. Jan. 23, 2009); see also United States v. Jerdine, No. 1:08-CR-

4

00481, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132021, at *18 (N.D. Oh. Feb. 18, 2009) (citation
omitted) (“Moreover, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants
Congress the power to create, define, and punish crimes irrespective of where they
are committed.”). Therefore, this citation actually strengthens the jurisdiction of this
Court to try Petitioner for his crimes.
Similarly, Petitioner’s citation to the Tenth Amendment to support a lack of
jurisdiction is meritless because of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Tenth
Amendment states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.” U.S. Const. amend. X. The Necessary and Proper Clause, as
described above, gave Congress the power to create jurisdiction over federal crimes.
Congress did so when it passed 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
Petitioner’s citation to Article IV, Section 3 to support a lack of jurisdiction is
meritless. Article IV, Section 3 dictates how new states may enter the union. U.S.
Const. art. IV, § 3. It does not pertain to jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s citation to 18 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7(3) to support a lack of jurisdiction is
meritless, because they are a statutory definition. These sections define the meaning
of words for the title. Jurisdiction is granted in 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
Lastly, Petitioner’s citation to 18 U.S.C. § 13(a) to support a lack of jurisdiction
is also meritless. The Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §13, “subjects federal
enclaves, like military bases, to state criminal laws except when they punish the same
conduct as a federal statute.” Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619, 1631 (2016). Petitioner
was arrested for the violation of a federal law, not a criminal law. United States v.

5

Maurice Ellis, No. 1:15-cr-10060-JBM-JEH. Furthermore, he was not arrested on a
federal enclave, but rather on a road near Morton, Illinois. Compl. (Doc. 1), United
States v. Maurice Ellis, No. 1:15-cr-10060-JBM-JEH. Therefore, Petitioner’s citation
is meritless.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
CASE TERMINATED.
Entered this _21st_ day of November, 2016.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge

6