King v. Moody et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This case is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous. Judgment shall be entered by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DEVONTE KING, freeman and
prosecutor;
4:21CV3119
Plaintiff,
vs.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

GRANT MOODY, Trp; N
SHAATHOFF, Trp; BRAD HAYS, Trp;
REED, Trp #590; and AURORA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
WRONGDOER(S),
Defendants.

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Filing 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff’s claims to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Filing 1) and supplements thereto (Filings 6, 7, 8)
allege that Defendant law-enforcement officers Moody, Shaathoff, Hays, and Reed
“falsely arrested” him after using a “false emergency” to perform a traffic stop on
June 15, 2021, after which the officers wrongfully impounded his car (which also
serves as his family’s home), and left him and his family on the side of the road.
Plaintiff claims the officers “robbed” him of his vehicle and “threatened [him] with
false arrest” for “using the public highway in a commercial capacity.” (Filing 7 at
CM/ECF pp. 1, 5.) Plaintiff accuses Defendants of holding his car “ransom” and
refusing to return his property to him unless he presents identification, a valid
driver’s license, proof of vehicle ownership, proof of valid automobile insurance,

$225.00 in cash for towing costs, and storage fees. (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 8; Filing
7 at CM/ECF p. 4.)
Plaintiff claims, “I do not claim to be a citizen I do not claim to have civil
rights I am just a free man.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 4.) Because he is “inherently
free,” he does not believe he “should have license registration and insurance just to
travel from point a to point b.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.) He claims that complying
with the officers’ demands in order to get his car back would be giving up his “right
to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and contract my property with the dmv
with is Involuntary servitude.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.)
Plaintiff charges Defendants with violations of the Fourth Amendment (false
arrest, impoundment of vehicle), Fourteenth Amendment (deprivation of property
without due process of law), Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause), trespass, forgery,
robbery, and extortion. The body of Plaintiff’s Complaint and supplements accuse
the City of Aurora of being liable for the individual police officers’ actions and
Governor Pete Ricketts of “aiding and abetting the violations.” The Plaintiff also
wishes to add the State of Nebraska as a defendant. (Filing 6 at CM/ECF p. 2; Filing
7 at CM/ECF p. 5; Filing 8 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff requests $200,000 in damages
and the return of his car. (Filing 6.)
The court takes judicial notice that there is a pending criminal case resulting
from the above-described incident in the County Court of Hamilton County,
Nebraska, CR-21-220.1 In that case, Plaintiff was charged with misdemeanor counts
of no proof of financial responsibility, no valid registration, and no operator’s
license. (Complaint dated June 28, 2021, for events of June 15, 2021.) Plaintiff was
found guilty on all counts and fined accordingly. (Journal Entry and Order dated
Aug. 10, 2021.) The Hamilton County District Court affirmed Plaintiff’s conviction,
1

The court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records
and include them in its consideration of a case. Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757,
761 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005). Nebraska’s judicial records may be retrieved online through
the JUSTICE website, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice.
2

rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that “the rules of the road are not applicable to him as
the State is without authority to regulate him, a non-commercial driver,” and noting
that “the State has a right to regulate the usage of its public highways.” 2 (District
Court Order dated Oct. 12, 2021.) On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal in the Hamilton County District Court to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must
dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

2

The Hamilton County District Court described the facts as follows:

The facts of the matter are largely undisputed. On June 15, 2021, Trooper
Grant Moody of the Nebraska State Patrol was on patrol in Hamilton County,
Nebraska, and positioned at the Aurora, Nebraska, interchange of Interstate 80. On
the date in question, Trooper Moody was patrolling westbound on Interstate 80 at
mile marker 330 in Hamilton County, Nebraska. Moody testified that he observed a
red Toyota Corolla travelling westbound. As the vehicle passed Moody, Moody
noticed that it did not have a visible front or rear license plate.
Trooper Moody initiated his emergency lights and initiated a traffic stop.
Trooper Moody identified the driver of the vehicle as the defendant, Devonte King.
Also inside the vehicle were Mr. King’s wife and children.
Trooper Moody requested Mr. King to provide his license, registration and
proof of insurance. Mr. King did not provide any of these items and told Moody that
he was on private property and did not have to. Trooper Moody ran the vehicle
identification number of the vehicle and determined that Devonte King was an
owner. Mr. King also provided the trooper with a document showing his ownership.
At trial, Mr. King . . . . provided a photo of his vehicle which has attached
three bumper stickers, one of which reads “Private Property. No Trespassing.”
3

Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is to give the opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds
for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.” Topchian v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally
construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other
parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
The premise of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Nebraska laws requiring proof of
financial responsibility, vehicle registration, and an operator’s license in order to
drive a vehicle do not apply to him, and he should not be subject to consequences
for breaking such laws—commonly known as a “sovereign citizen” claim based on
the idea that statutes and laws do not apply to him as a sovereign citizen. As Plaintiff
has been repeatedly advised in prior cases, sovereign-citizen claims and arguments
are routinely rejected as frivolous. King v. Allison, No. 4:21CV3053, 2021 WL
2778558, at *2 (D. Neb. July 2, 2021) (noting “misguided” sovereign-citizen
argument regarding issuance of traffic citation to plaintiff for not having valid
vehicle registration, proof of insurance, or driver’s license); King v. Allison, No.
4:21CV3052, 2021 WL 1820478, at *2 (D. Neb. May 6, 2021) (same); King v. Smith,
No. 4:21CV3060, 2021 WL 1820484, at *2 (D. Neb. May 6, 2021) (same); King v.
Turnbull, No. 4:21CV3003, 2021 WL 1293307 (D. Neb. Apr. 7, 2021) (dismissing
as frivolous sovereign-citizen claim challenging state requirement of having
operator’s license to drive vehicle). See also United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032,
4

1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (referring to the sovereign-citizen argument as “completely
without merit, patently frivolous and . . . rejected without expending any more of
this Court’s resources”); United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983)
(rejecting “sovereign citizen” as a status); Hansen v. Nebraska, No. 8:20CV203,
2020 WL 3100101, at *2 (D. Neb. June 11, 2020) (premise of plaintiff’s claims that
he is not subject to state law or authority has been repeatedly rejected as frivolous;
collecting cases); Reed v. Jones, No. 4:21CV3051, 2021 WL 2913023, at *3 (D.
Neb. July 12, 2021) (“sovereign citizen” argument that motor-vehicle registration
and licensing laws do not apply to plaintiff rejected as frivolous); Meyer v. Pfeifle,
No. 4:18-CV-04048, 2019 WL 1209776, at *5 (D.S.D. Mar. 14, 2019), aff’d, 790 F.
App’x 843 (8th Cir. 2020) “[the plaintiff’s] allegations regarding rights as a
‘sovereign citizen’ are frivolous and fail to state a claim”); Yisrael-Bey v. O’Toole,
No. 4:17-CV-2631, 2018 WL 10425462, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2018) (plaintiff’s
Fourth Amendment false arrest and false imprisonment claims were frivolous when
plaintiff claimed that neither state nor federal government had ability to bring
criminal charges against her; “Arguments based on the ‘sovereign citizen’ or ‘private
citizen’ movement cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction in this action under
the Fourth Amendment.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed as frivolous. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-34 (1992) (court may dismiss complaint of plaintiff
proceeding in forma pauperis as frivolous); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th
Cir. 2002) (dismissing complaint as frivolous and stating that “[a] complaint is
frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact” (citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989))). Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend
his Complaint because such amendment would be futile. See Silva v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 762 F.3d 711, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts can deny motions to amend
when such amendments would be futile, such as claims that are frivolous or could
not withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918,
922 (8th Cir. 2013) (“frivolous claims are futile”); Filipe v. FBI, No. 8:18CV215,
2018 WL 11249338, at *1 (D. Neb. June 1, 2018) (“the court will dismiss this action
5

as frivolous and with prejudice as the defects in the Complaint cannot be remedied
through more specific pleading”).
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

This case is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous.

2.

Judgment shall be entered by separate document.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

6