LINCOLN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL PART CAMDEN COUNTY

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 2/9/2016. (TH, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

William Lincoln,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
Superior Court of New Jersey, :
:
Defendant.
:

CIV. ACTION NO. 16-609 (RMB)

OPINION

_______________________________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, U.S. District Judge
On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a self-styled “Affidavit
of Fact” “Notice to Void All Contracts.” (ECF No. 1.) This document
was addressed to the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division,
Criminal Part, Camden County. Plaintiff submitted a cover letter with
this document, addressed to this Court. (ECF No. 1-1.) In the cover
letter, Plaintiff asks whether something can be done because a state
court judge “is moving forward with trial at 9:00 a.m. on January
26, 2016, and he does not have the jurisdiction to do so.” (Id.) In
his “Notice to Void All Contracts,” Plaintiff stated “I do not consent
to the courts using any jurisdiction that is not common law
jurisdiction; I do not consent to a statutory jurisdiction.” (ECF
No. 1 at 2.)
1

Federal courts have “pre-trial habeas corpus jurisdiction,”
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that courts should not exercise such jurisdiction unless
extraordinary circumstances are present. Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d
437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975)). Jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly
to prevent “̔interference by federal courts in the normal functioning
of state criminal processes.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4
(3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 515 F.3d at 445-46). The district court
should

exercise

its

“pre-trial”

habeas

jurisdiction

only

if

petitioner makes a special showing of the need for such adjudication
and has exhausted state remedies.” Moore, 515 F.3d at 443.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 However, Plaintiff’s claim
that the state court lacks jurisdiction over him in a criminal
proceeding because he did not consent to statutory jurisdiction is
frivolous. Therefore, in the accompanying Opinion filed herewith,
the Court will deny Plaintiff’s petition with prejudice, pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 by application of the scope of the rules, Rule 1(b).

1

Plaintiff did not submit a filing fee or an application to proceed
without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3