Smith v. Minor

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for investigative andexpert services [ECF No. 4 ] is DENIED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed contemporaneously. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 10/10/2013. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHATHAN SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
DEAN MINOR,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV1987 DDN

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition is comprised of thirty pages of rambling and
mostly irrelevant accusations concerning the sovereignty of the Moorish people, the
suppression of the Moorish people by “Asiatics and Europeans,” and a masonic
conspiracy. Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds that petitioner is not
entitled to relief because his claims are non-cognizable in these proceedings.
On November 20, 2012, petitioner pled guilty to unlawful possession of a
firearm, unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, and possession of heroin. See Smith v.
Missouri, No. 1322-CC00095 (22nd Judicial Cir., Order dated September 9, 2013).
The court sentenced petitioner to two concurrent terms of five years’ imprisonment.
Id. at 2. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

Petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief, in which he alleged that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence found in his
locked safe. Id. The motion court denied relief on September 9, 2013, finding that
movant consented to the search and that he waived any Fourth Amendment claim
when he pled guilty. Id. at 4-5. Petitioner did not appeal. Pet. at 23. However,
petitioner filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Missouri
Supreme Court on August 12, 2013, which is still pending. Ex. Rel. Smith v.
Missouri, No. SC93611 (Mo. banc).
In the instant petition, petitioner alleges that his sentence should be vacated
because (1) his conviction is outside the scope of any Moroccan treaty and he did not
consent to the search of his property, (2) the sentencing court’s finding that he was
a prior and persistent offender infringed upon his rights, (3) the time limits for
postconviction relief proceedings were violated by the parties and the courts, and (4)
the police and laboratory reports were falsified.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a district court may only entertain a petition for
writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” In other words, grounds that do not state a
constitutional issue are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. E.g. Gee v.
Groose, 110 F.3d 1346, 1351-52 (8th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, a state prisoner “may
-2-

not . . . transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation
of due process.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).
Petitioner’s claims regarding the Moorish Science Temple of America and
Moroccan treaties are not cognizable in these proceedings. Fatal to petitioner’s
assertion of immunity is the non-recognition of the Moorish Nation as a sovereign
state by the United States. See Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 WL 1812615 *6 (M.D. Ga.
June 19, 2007); Osiris v. Brown, 2004 WL 2044904 *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2005);
Khattab El v. United States Justice Dept., 1988 WL 5117 *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 1988).
Petitioner cannot unilaterally bestow sovereign immunity upon himself. See United
States v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1984).
Whether petitioner qualifies as a prior and persistent offender under state law,
and whether the time limits were adhered to in the state postconviction proceedings,
are matters of state law and are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings.
A Fourth Amendment claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review unless
the state fails to provide “an opportunity for full and fair litigation of [the] claim.”
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). Thus, the Court will review a Fourth
Amendment claim raised in a habeas petition only if either “the state provided no
procedure by which the prisoner could raise his Fourth Amendment claim, or the
prisoner was foreclosed from using that procedure because of an unconscionable
-3-

breakdown in the system.” Willett v. Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1265, 1273 (8th Cir.1994)
(en banc). Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable in these
proceedings. Petitioner has not alleged that the state failed to provide him an
opportunity to litigate these claims. As a result, petitioner’s claims regarding the
search and the accuracy of the police reports are not cognizable in these proceedings.
Finally, petitioner has failed to allege facts showing that his guilty plea was
unknowing or involuntary. Therefore, he has not set forth a prima facie claim for
relief. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989).
For these reasons, petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
Furthermore, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, which requires a demonstration “that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right.” Khaimov v. Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).
Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
-4-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for investigative and
expert services [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed contemporaneously.
Dated this 10th day of October, 2013.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-