Brown v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Filing 71

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 69 MOTION for New Trial filed by Jeffrey Antonio Brown El - Petitioner is entitled to due process of law because he is a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America. His status as a Moorish American, whatever that means, does not entitled him to any more or less due process than any other person within that territorial jurisdiction. This is not a consular court, but a court established by the Congress of the United States pu rsuant to Article III of the Constitution. Petitioner has no right to have this case heard in a consular court.Therefore Petitioners instant Motion should be denied in its entirety. Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/1/18. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:17-cv-080
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

CHAE HARRIS, Warden,
Warren Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON RULE 59 MOTION

This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(c)(, (d),
and (e)(ECF No. 69). As a post-judgment motion, it is deemed referred to the assigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
To the extent the motion seeks a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d), it is not appropriate
in this case where no trial or other evidentiary hearing was ever held. The precedent governing
amendment of judgments provides:
Motions to alter or amend judgment may be granted if there is a clear
error of law, see Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, 146 F.3d at 374, newly
discovered evidence, see id., an intervening change in controlling
law, Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 34
F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994); Hayes v. Douglas Dynamics, Inc., 8
F.3d 88, 90-91 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993); School District No. 1J v.
ACANDS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), or to prevent
manifest injustice. Davis, 912 F.2d at 133; Collison, 34 F.3d at 236;
Hayes, 8 F.3d at 90-91 n.3. See also North River Ins. Co. v. Cigna
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995).
To constitute "newly discovered evidence," the evidence must have
1

been previously unavailable. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263; Javetz v.
Board of Control, Grand Valley State Univ. 903 F. Supp. 1181, 1191
(W.D. Mich. 1995)(and cases cited therein); Charles A. Wright, 11
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 at 127-28 (1995).
Gencorp, Inc. v. American Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999), accord, Nolfi v.
Ohio Ky. Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 538, 551-52 (6th Cir. 2011), quoting Leisure Caviar, LLC v. United
States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010).
Petitioner asserts he meets this standard because he has “demonstrated throughout these
proceedings clear error of law as to the indictment, and as to the sentencing.” (Motion, ECF No.,
69, PageID 4050). The Court has already dealt with these claims of error by the state courts in its
final decision (ECF No. 53).
Petitioner also asserts he “has demonstrated his Rights to due process of law of the Fifth
Amendment as a Moorish-American.” (Motion, ECF No. 69, PageID 4051). Petitioner is entitled
to due process of law because he is a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
of America. His status as a “Moorish American,” whatever that means, does not entitled him to
any more or less due process than any other person within that territorial jurisdiction.
This is not a “consular” court, but a court established by the Congress of the United States
pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. Petitioner has no right to have this case heard in a
“consular” court.
Therefore Petitioner’s instant Motion should be denied in its entirety.

June 1, 2018.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days
because this Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections.
If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record
at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or
such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless
the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

3