Singleton v. Walton

Filing 22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Anthony Singleton is hereby SANCTIONED with a $500 fine, to be paid before any other civil litigation will be filed. This fine is in addition to any other filing fees owed to this district. The Clerk of Court is DIR ECTED to return all civil pleadings unfiled until the sanction is paid, and all habeas corpus filings will be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents submitted in connection with any appeal are excluded from the sanction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's "Registration of Claim" and "Notice of Irrevocable Power of Attorney" (Docs. 20, 21) shall be STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/8/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY SINGLETON,
No. 94408-024,
Petitioner,
vs.
JEFFREY S. WALTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-01430-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Petitioner Anthony Singleton is currently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at
Marion, Illinois. He is housed in the Communications Management Unit (“CMU”). On December
31, 2014, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The
petition was dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 8).1 Judgment was entered accordingly (Doc. 9), and
Singleton’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Docs. 11, 19).

The Court is presently

considering sanctioning Singleton for his persistent filing of frivolous, harassing, and even
threatening pleadings.
Procedural History
In the present action, Petitioner Singleton challenged the creation of the CMU, his placement
in the CMU (which is substantially populated with “terrorists”), and the systematic screening of his
communications, among other things. He claimed that prison officials committed a federal crime by
intercepting communications from him that relate to a “Closing Agreement” with the Department of
the Treasury regarding his federal tax obligation. Singleton sought an order enjoining this allegedly
criminal conduct, directing the return of certain documents to him, and transferring him out of the
1

United States District Judge David R. Herndon issued the order dismissing the petition. He subsequently
recused himself from this case, and it was reassigned to the undersigned district judge (Doc. 18).

Page 1 of 4

CMU (see Doc. 1, p. 7). As already noted, the petition was dismissed—on the merits and without
prejudice to any civil rights action (Doc. 8).
The petition and why sanctions are being contemplated is best understood in context.
Anthony Singleton (a.k.a. Anthony Singleton Hall and/or Anthony Singleton-El) is no stranger to this
Court. He identifies himself as a “sovereign citizen.” He was convicted in 2004 of theft of mail and
possession of a mail access device. United States v. Singleton, Case No. 03-cr-175 (N.D. Ill.). Upon
his release from prison, he was convicted in New York of grand larceny and possession of a forged
Treasury check in the amount of $256,000.00 (a 15-month state sentence was imposed), which in
turn earned him an additional 36 months back in federal prison for violating the terms of his
supervised release.
While in prison, Singleton has accumulated three strikes for purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
which limits his ability to file civil rights cases because he must now pay the $400 filing fee up front.
See Singleton v. United States, Case No. 11-cv-442 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (regarding a Treasury
Department Closing Agreement); Singleton-El v. Carroll, Case No. 04-cv-291 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (civil
rights claims in re the search and seizure tied to his underlying criminal conviction); Singleton-El v.
Coar, Case No. 04-cv-1548 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (a jurisdictional challenge to his criminal indictment and
prosecution).
Initially, Singleton legitimately pursued habeas corpus relief (see Singleton v. Walton, Case
No. 14-cv-288-DRH-CJP (S.D. Ill. 2014); Singleton v. Walton, Case No. 14-cv-1038-DRH (S.D. Ill.
2014). After the dismissal of his two petitions, however, Singleton warned District Judge David R.
Herndon to “proceed with caution” when deciding his motion for reconsideration, and to “think
again.” Singleton even characterized the dismissal of the second petition as itself a criminal act.
The present Section 2241 petition is clearly premised upon the same notions that were
previously found to be frivolous in Singleton’s civil rights cases. In true sovereign citizen form, he
filed a “Notice of Acceptance of Official’s Oath of Office,” stating that Judge Herndon was a
Page 2 of 4

“guarantor” obligated to pay him damages if the petition was not successful (Doc. 6). In the order
dismissing the present Section 2241 petition, Case No. 14-cv-1430, Singleton was warned that under
Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997), and Support Systems International, Inc. v.
Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), he could face a steep fine and filing ban for vexatious filings
(Doc. 8). Undeterred, in connection with his motion for reconsideration, Singleton filed a “Notice of
Interest in Oath of Office and Associated Bonding,” a “Contractual Notification”/”Opportunity to
Cure Default/Contractual Notification,” and an “Affidavit of Criminal Liability” (Docs. 15, 16, 17).
The motion for reconsideration was denied, and Singleton was ordered to show cause in writing why
he should not be sanctioned for filing those patently frivolous and harassing documents (Doc. 19).
Singleton has now opted to “double down” by responding to the order to show cause by filing
a “Registration of Claim”—a “contractual notification” that Judge Herndon is obligated as the
guarantor of Singleton’s claim against the IRS for $350,000,000 (Doc. 20). He also filed a “Notice
of Irrevocable Power of Attorney,” purportedly by Judge Herndon, giving Singleton full authority to
pay Singleton with federal funds, and “ratifying and confirming any and all acts done in [Judge
Herndon’s] name and public title as principal in U.S. District Court SDIL, Case No. 3:14-cv-01430DRH….” (Doc. 21). Not only did Singleton file the power of attorney on Judge Herndon’s behalf, he
affixed Judge Herndon’s signature to the document.
Singleton was specifically warned in the order of dismissal (Doc. 8) that under Alexander v.
United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997), and Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d
185 (7th Cir. 1995), he could face a fine and filing ban for vexatious filings. In Alexander, the Court
warned that if the petitioner filed any further frivolous habeas petitions he would be fined $500; the
fine would have to be paid before any other civil litigation be allowed to be filed, and any habeas
action would be summarily dismissed thirty days after filing unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
That is exactly what the Court previously informed Singleton was being considered as a sanction.

Page 3 of 4

Clearly, Singleton intends to continue his harassment and threats. Therefore, as a sanction
for filing the “Notice of Interest in Oath of Office and Associated Bonding,” “Contractual
Notification”/”Opportunity to Cure Default/Contractual Notification,” and “Affidavit of Criminal
Liability” (Docs. 15, 16, 17), Singleton will be sanctioned with a fine and filing ban. No additional
penalties will be imposed in this case relative to Singleton’s most recent filings (Docs. 20, 21); those
documents have been forwarded to the United States Attorney and United States Marshal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Anthony Singleton is hereby SANCTIONED with a $500
fine, to be paid before any other civil litigation will be filed. This fine is in addition to any other
filing fees owed to this district. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return all civil pleadings
unfiled until the sanction is paid, and all habeas corpus filings will be summarily dismissed thirty
days after filing, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Documents submitted in connection with
any appeal are excluded from the sanction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Registration of Claim” and “Notice of
Irrevocable Power of Attorney” (Docs. 20, 21) shall be STRICKEN from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2015

______________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4