Hendricks v. Bingham et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM adopting 13 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the Defendants' 12 Motion to dismiss is granted and the civil action is dismissed with prejudice to the claims being asserted again until such time as Hendricks can show that h is conviction has been overturned, expunged by executive order, declared invalid in a state collateral proceeding, or called into question through the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. Ordered that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 1/13/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JEREMY JAMES HENDRICKS

§

v.

§

MATT BINGHAM, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv942

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Jeremy Hendricks, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered
that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and
(3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges. The named Defendants are Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham
and Assistant District Attorney Peter Keim.
I. The Plaintiff’s Claims
Hendricks states that he is a “natural born, free, living, breathing flesh and blood human with
sentient and moral existence, a real man upon the soil, a juris et de jour, also known as a Secured
Party and an inhabitant, not a United States citizen.” As such, he contends that he is not subject to
the laws of the United States or the State of Texas. He claims that he is being held in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division on an unconstitutional judgment
because he is a holder in due course by a recorded security agreement and is a secured party creditor
to JEREMY JAMES HENDRICKS [DEBTOR] or any variations or derivations thereof.
Hendricks further asserts that he presented a “conditional acceptance for value” to the
Defendants but they did not respond, meaning that they are in default and have agreed to all of the
terms of a “trust contract.” He asks that his judgment of conviction be vacated, he be discharged
1

from the custody of any and all state agencies, that he be awarded compensatory and punitive
damages, and that the Defendants assume all of these obligations including incarceration for failure
to comply.
The purported “conditional acceptance for value” demands that Bingham and Keim prove
that the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas apply to Hendricks, that federal
or state law apply to him, that the conduct of the Smith County prosecutors applies to flesh-andbllod men and women rather than the “corporate state of Texas,” that the United States and the State
of Texas did not dissolve as a result of the contrived national bankruptcy of 1933, and numerous
similar items. The document claims that if the demanded proof is not provided within 14 days, this
failure will amount to a stipulation as to all of the facts as they operate in favor of Hendricks and that
Hendricks is due damages in tort. Other documents furnished by Hendricks show that he was
charged with sexual assault of a child, pleaded guilty, and received a 14-year sentence beginning
in January of 2008, with credit for time served.
II. The Motion to Dismiss and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
The Defendants were served with process and filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
Hendricks’ claims are barred because they implicate the validity of his conviction and he has not
shown that the conviction has been set aside. The Defendants also invoked qualified and absolute
immunity.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
motion to dismiss be granted and the lawsuit dismissed. The Magistrate Judge determined that
Hendricks cannot obtain monetary damages or equitable relief because he has not shown that his
sentence has been overturned, expunged, or otherwise set aside. The Magistrate Judge also
determined that the prosecutors are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as well as qualified
immunity; the fact that the prosecutors did not respond to Hendricks’ purported “conditional
acceptance for value” or “demand for proof of claims” did not violate any clearly established

2

constitutional rights because the Magistrate Judge concluded that these instruments were items of
Hendricks’ own creation and had no legal meaning or effect.
In his objections, Hendricks states that he served a “conditional acceptance for value” upon
the Defendants, giving them thirty days to answer, but they failed to do so. He contends that “all
public officials in receipt of this notice are required by their oath of office to answer” and claims that
before an individual can be charged and convicted of a crime, the government agency must prove
jurisdiction. Hendricks further states that Texas is not a United States Territory acquired under
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, nor is it an enclave acquired under Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. He complains that he never received notice of the motion
to dismiss and argues that the case should not be dismissed until the Defendants have answered all
of the questions posed to them.
III. Discussion
Hendricks did not refer to, much less object to, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the
purported “conditional acceptance for value” was a document of Hendricks’ own creation and
whiolly lacking in legal significance or effect. Cobble v. U.S., civil action no. 09-379C, 2009 WL
2610532 (Fed.Cl., August 24, 2009) (conditional acceptance for value presented by federal prisoner
was not a contract); Turnbough v. Thaler, civil action no. 6:11cv336, 2011 WL 4592379 (E.D.Tex.,
August 13, 2011), Report adopted at 2011 WL 4592361 (E.D.Tex., September 30, 2011)
(“conditional acceptance for value” was document of prisoner’s own creation and had no legal
effect); Harris v. Kammerzell, 440 F.App’x 627, 2011 WL 4448855 (10th Cir., September 27, 2011)
(attempt to effect release from prison through the operation of civil commercial statutes such as the
Uniform Commercial Code is legally frivolous). His claim that Texas is not a United States territory
or enclave lacks merit because Texas became a State of the United States on December 29, 1845,
upon the signing by President James K. Polk of the Joint Resolution for the Admission of of the
State of Texas into the Union. See Minot, Geo., ed., Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United
States of America from December 1, 1845 to March 3. 1851, vol. IX, p. 108. Hendricks’ contention
3

that he is not subject to state or federal law is patently frivolous. See, e.g., U.S. v. Montgomery, 778
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1985); Upton v. I.R.S., 104 F.3d 543, 545 n/1 (2nd Cir. 1997); United
States v. Jagrim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992). Although Hendricks asserts that he did not
receive a copy of the motion to dismiss, he nonetheless had ample opportunity to and did object to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report, which set out the factual and legal bases for the recommendation of
dismissal. Hendricks’ objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(District Judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 13) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 12) is GRANTED and the
above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the claims being asserted again
until such time as Hendricks can show that his conviction has been overturned, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid in a state collateral proceeding, or called into question through the
issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Jan 13, 2017

4