United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
SHAWN D. HARRIS, Plaintiff,
ROBERT COLOMBO, JR. et al., Defendants.
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
an action brought by a state prisoner seeking relief from a
state circuit court judge and his spouse and the Wayne County
prosecutor and her spouse. Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), the Court is
required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal
law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. The Court must read Plaintiff's pro
se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or
wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
33 (1992). Plaintiff's allegations are precisely that:
clearly irrational and wholly incredible. Plaintiff's
action will be dismissed as frivolous.
alleges that he served Defendants with a criminal complaint
and affidavit of obligation on November 14, 2016. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.4, ¶ 15; Criminal Compl., ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.17-27.) Defendants failed to respond.
January 3, 2017, Plaintiff followed up with a notice of fault
giving Defendants another ten days to rebut the facts in the
affidavit of obligation. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4,
¶18; notice of fault, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.38-38.)
Defendants again failed to respond.
Plaintiff served Defendants with a notice of default and
certificate of dishonor/administrative judgment nihil dicit
on January 25, 2017. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4, ¶ 20;
notice of default, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.44-46.) Defendants,
once again, failed to respond.
provided the Defendants three opportunities to make things
right, and Defendants having failed to do so, Plaintiff
contends he is entitled to judgment in the amount of $123,
to the criminal complaint and affidavit of obligation
referenced in the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff
challenges the proceedings in Wayne County Circuit Court case
96-0998, the criminal prosecution that resulted in his
incarceration two decades ago. (Criminal Compl., ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.17-27.) None of the defendants participated in that
prosecution (J. of Sentence, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.29);
nonetheless, Plaintiff sues them because of their respective
present leadership positions in the circuit court and the
prosecutor's office. (Criminal Compl., ECF No. 1-2,
PageID.17-27.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants are liable
for failing to correct 35 specific rights violations that
occurred during his criminal prosecution. (Id.,
PageID.18.) By way of the affidavit of obligation, Plaintiff
offered Defendants the opportunity to release him or rebut
his claims. (Id., PageID.19.) Plaintiff argues that,
having failed to respond, the Defendants have accepted
through all of the gibberish in Plaintiff's complaint,
the single core fact that appears to give rise to all of the
claimed liability is this: “Claimant was convicted in
Respondents' court without any evidence of subject matter
jurisdiction on the record of the court.”
(Id., PageID.22.) Among the damages Plaintiff seeks
are $1, 800, 000.00 per day for his wrongful imprisonment.
(Id., PageID.25.) Whatever the source and nature of
the original wrong visited upon Plaintiff by these
Defendants, Plaintiff comes to this Court seeking only one
thing: recognition of the administrative process he has
painstakingly pursued, a process that has yielded an
“acknowledged” obligation of $123, 840, 000.00.
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
complaint is patently frivolous. The issuance of
Plaintiff's birth certificate did not create a fictitious
legal entity simply by capitalizing Plaintiff's name, and
it certainly did not turn such artificial person into an
enemy of the state under the Emergency Banking Relief Act of
1933 or the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. (Compl., ECF
No. 1, PageID.3, ¶¶ 7-8.) Moreover, Plaintiff
cannot bind the Defendants to his fictitious notions and
nonsensical procedural documents by demanding responses or
rebuttals within 30 calendar days in the first instance or 10
calendar days for the later submissions. The courts
repeatedly have rejected such “redemptionist and
sovereign citizen” arguments as utterly frivolous.
See, e.g., Bey v. Butzbaugh, No. 1:13-cv-1173, 2014
WL 5149931, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2014) (citing
Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-760, 2014 WL 3670609,
at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (“Theories presented by
redemptionist and sovereign citizen adherents have not only
been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as frivolous
and a waste of court resources.”) (collecting cases)).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's action
because it is frivolous.
conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff's action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim and as ...