STOKES v. STEVENS

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 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 the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/23/2016. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NEVELYN STOKES,
Petitioner,
v.
SENATOR STEVENS,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1837 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Nevelyn Stokes petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The petition is denied.
On May 10, 2001, a jury found petitioner guilty on five counts of second-degree murder
and one count of first-degree arson resulting in injury or death. Missouri v. Stokes, No. 2200100482 (City of St. Louis). The court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Farmington Correctional Center in Farmington,
Missouri. He filed this case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
alleging that Senators Stevens and King have been pushing him around and slandering him with
regard to a program called HAARP. Petitioner claims that he is a “victim of a caption code
block system that HAARP . . . owns.” He says the system relies on a “block system” developed
in the medieval era. He seeks conditional release from prison.
Petitioner recently filed a similar in this action in this Court, which was dismissed as
frivolous. Stokes v. Villmer, No. 4:15-CV-1272 NAB. In that case, he said he quit taking his
psychiatric medication because he believed it was bad for him. He began to believe that HAARP
used the Earth’s ionosphere to control individuals and the weather through microwaves. He said

he believed he was being used by HAARP or some other computer program. The Court notes
that HAARP mind control is a popular subject amongst conspiracy theorists on the internet.1
The allegations in the petition are wholly delusional and do not state a cognizable claim
for relief under § 2241. As a result, the petition must be dismissed.
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 the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED,
and this action is DISMISSED.
Dated this 23rd day of November, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program.

2