Moose v. Butler
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Moose's petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1] is DENIED. 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket as frivolous. 3. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. (KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SANDRA BUTLER, Warden,
Civil Action No. 6: 17-57-DCR
*** *** *** ***
In 2012, Petitioner Thirplus Moose pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank
robbery, armed bank robbery with forcible restraint, and the use or discharge of a firearm
during a crime of violence. See United States v. Moose, No. 4: 08-cr-262-GAF-2 (W.D.
Mo. 2008). Moose subsequently was sentenced to 420 months in prison. See id. Moose
waived the right to appeal his conviction or sentence. The waiver was upheld on direct
appeal. See id.
Moose then filed multiple petitions for writs of habeas corpus. He argued in these
petitions that, among other things, the federal court lacked jurisdiction in his criminal case.
The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois repeatedly denied the
petitions as frivolous. See Moose v. United States, No. 1: 16-cv-01296-JES (C.D. Ill.
2016); Moose v. United States, No. 1: 16-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill. 2016); Moose v. United
States, No. 1: 16-cv-01403-JBM (C.D. Ill. 2016).
Moose is now confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Manchester,
Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Moose has filed yet another petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in which he claims that his “alleged crime(s) was not committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [Record No. 1 at 2] While Moose does not
clearly indicate whether he is seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2255, it is clear
that his latest petition once again lacks merit.
Moose erroneously and confusingly argues that the “United States has no territorial
jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States
within the American Union,” and he wrongly adds that “[j]urisdiction of land and/or
property within state boundaries belong to the state to enforce its criminal laws and the
United States cannot assume jurisdiction without filing a notice of acceptance with the
Governor of the State.” [Record No. 1 at 1] Simply put, this argument is baseless. In fact,
as the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois already noted, the laws
of the United States apply to all persons within its borders, including Moose. See United
States v. Phillips, 326 F. App’x 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “a district court has
personal jurisdiction over any defendant brought before it on a federal indictment charging
a violation of federal law”).
Federal courts are authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears to be
legally insufficient on its face. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Moose’s
petition clearly falls within that category. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
Moose’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Record No. 1] is DENIED.
This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket as
A corresponding judgment will be entered this date.
This 11th day of May, 2017.
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?