Mattice v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Filing 9

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 7 ; overruling the objections to the Report and Recommendation; dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner is denied leave to appeal IFP. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 3/8/16. (mb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Jasaun Robert Lawrence Mattice,
Petitioner,
vs.
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:15-cv-768

ORDER
Before the Court are Respondent’s objections to the Order and Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 8) Petitioner, Jasaun Mattice, objects
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
be dismissed, without prejudice to refiling when Petitioner has exhausted his available
state court remedies.
Petitioner Mattice filed his petition in this case, generally alleging that he had
been arrested and was being held in the Hamilton County jail. He alleged that he was
being illegally detained, because he is (variously) an “Asiatic Moorish American” under
the jurisdiction of a sovereign government (Doc. 1-1 at 7), that he was arrested without
an order from Congress, and that he is a freeholder and not a “corporate franchise or a
slave.” (Id.) In his objections, he also asserted that he is “ALLAH manifested in human
flesh.” (Doc. 6) Petitioner concedes that he is a pretrial detainee being held on
unspecified state charges, and asks the Court to order him released immediately.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that, despite the difficulty of construing
or accepting all of Petitioner’s allegations, it is clear that as a pretrial detainee he may

not seek habeas corpus relief in this Court absent extraordinary circumstances. Those
circumstances would include the state's refusal to grant a speedy trial, or a prosecution
that would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Petitioner’s allegations and arguments
do not give rise to any extraordinary circumstances that would permit a departure from
well-settled law regarding the availability of habeas relief to state pre-trial detainees, or
an exception to the doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).
Petitioner’s objections generally repeat his assertions regarding his “sovereign” status,
and his contention that the Geneva Convention Protocols protect him from the state’s
prosecution and/or detention.
The Court concludes that Petitioner’s objections are frivolous, and they fail to
address the well-established law that is discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
After de novo review of the entire record, the Court overrules Petitioner’s objections and
adopts the Report and Recommendation in full.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1-1) is hereby dismissed, without
prejudice to refiling when and if Petitioner exhausts all of his available state remedies,
and otherwise complies with the requirements imposed by the federal habeas corpus
statutes and rules.
The Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to
the petition, because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable whether this Court is
correct in its ruling with respect to Mattice’s claims. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in good faith, and denies Mattice leave to appeal in forma
-2-

pauperis. See Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997). Mattice is free
to seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.
SO ORDERED.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
DATED: March 8, 2016

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-