Barnett v. Warden
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER'S PENDING MOTIONS Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)
Case 2:21-cv-12959-LVP-PTM ECF No. 8, PageID.98 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA BARNETT,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:21-cv-12959
Honorable Linda V. Parker
WARDEN,
Respondent.
______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER’S PENDING MOTIONS
Petitioner Joshua Barnett, a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Milan, filed a
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner also filed a
motion for summary judgment and a motion for change of venue. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.)
The petition, as best as the Court can discern, asserts that the Bureau of Prisons is
without jurisdiction to hold Petitioner because the government engaged in some
form of securities fraud by selling bonds bearing Petitioner’s name and secured by
the judgment in his criminal case. (See ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 15-17.) The Court
finds the claim frivolous. Therefore, the Court is summarily denying the habeas
petition, denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and deny Petitioner’s pending
motions.
Case 2:21-cv-12959-LVP-PTM ECF No. 8, PageID.99 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 5
I. Background
On July 7, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana to one count of manufacturing more than onehundred marijuana plants contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). See United States v.
Barnett, No. 1:15-cr-00021 (S.D. Ind. July 7, 2015), ECF No. 32. The district
court sentenced Petitioner to a term of incarceration of 120 months. Judgment, id.
(S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2015), ECF No. 35.
From 2020 to the present, Petitioner has filed several post-conviction
motions in the Southern District of Indiana, making “natural born person” and
other commercial-law based arguments challenging his criminal conviction, which
are similar to the arguments raised in the present action. See id. at ECF Nos. 37,
41, 44, 55. The District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has denied all
Petitioner’s motions.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a
cause of action under federal law or it may be summarily dismissed. See Perez v.
Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal courts are
authorized to dismiss any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its
face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Summary dismissal is
available if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits attached
2
Case 2:21-cv-12959-LVP-PTM ECF No. 8, PageID.100 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 5
to it that the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke,
178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
III. Discussion
Although Petitioner’s arguments in his petition are difficult to follow, he
seems to be arguing that the BOP has no authority to hold him in custody because
of some overarching fraudulent scheme whereby financial instruments are secured
by using the identities of federal prisoners. Because Petitioner did not consent to
the scheme as “creditor/real party in interest,” he seeks to “redeem said securities”
by way of his release from custody. (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 5-8.)
Petitioner is not the first federal prisoner to assert such arguments. While
the particulars of the arguments vary from case to case, they express similar
conspiratorial ideas and have been regularly dismissed. See, e.g., Van Hazel v.
Luoma, No. 05-cv-73401, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25247, 2005 WL 2837356, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2005) (defendant cannot divest the court of jurisdiction to
prosecute him by declaring a security interest in himself); Kerr v. Hedrick, 89 F.
App’x 962, 963 (6th Cir. 2004) (rejecting claim that defendant was exempt from
punishment for his federal crimes because his rights derived exclusively from his
religious beliefs); see also United States v. Holloway, 11 F. App’x 398, 400 (6th
Cir. 2001) (indicating that any contention that the Uniform Commercial Code
presents a potential defense would be frivolous, as the code is not applicable in
3
Case 2:21-cv-12959-LVP-PTM ECF No. 8, PageID.101 Filed 10/17/22 Page 4 of 5
criminal proceedings). Petitioner’s arguments are similarly frivolous and therefore
are being summarily dismissed.
Petitioner’s pending motions, which the Court interprets as attempts to
amplify his frivolous claims, are denied as moot. Furthermore, the Court denies
Petitioner leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis because any appeal
would be frivolous and thus would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445-46 (1962)
(interpreting “good faith” in § 1915 to mean “not frivolous”). Finally, Petitioner is
not required to apply for a certificate of appealability if he attempts to appeal this
decision because “the statutory language imposing the certificate-of-appealability
requirement clearly does not extend to cases where . . . detention arose out of
federal process but the proceeding is not under § 2255.” Witham v. United States,
355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus
is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 5) and motion to change venue (ECF No. 6) are DENIED AS
MOOT.
4
Case 2:21-cv-12959-LVP-PTM ECF No. 8, PageID.102 Filed 10/17/22 Page 5 of 5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 17, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 17, 2022, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
5
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?