Opinion
Civil Action 22-364
03-25-2022
GREGORY GARRETT BROWN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN JEFFREY S. FEWELL, Respondent.
Hon. David S. Cercone United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ECF No. 5
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 5, be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability denied.
II. REPORT
Gregory Garrett Brown (“Petitioner”) is a pre-trial detainee currently housed in the Washington County Jail in Washington, Pennsylvania. This case was initiated on March 1, 2022 with the receipt of the Petition without filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Petitioner paid the filing fee on March 22, 2022, and the Petition formally was filed on the same date. ECF Nos. 4 and 5.
In the Petition, Petitioner complains of charges pending against him in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County at “0037-2021.” Id. A review of the public record indicates that Petitioner currently is awaiting trial on charges of making terroristic threats in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A § 2706(a)(1) in Commonwealth v. Brown, No. CP-63-CR-37-2021. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-63-CR-0000037- 2021&dnh=SZlDx7cJ2Wz2nw6%2FpkbE6w%3D%3D (last visited March 25, 2022)). As of the date of this writing, no trial has taken place, and no conviction has been obtained in that matter.
As best as can be determined from the sparse allegations in the Petition, the sole basis for relief asserted is that Petitioner is a so-called “sovereign citizen,” and the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County lacks jurisdiction over him because he has not consented to its judgment. ECF No. 5 at 2 and 6-7.
A. Applicable Legal Standard
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss the Petition if it plainly appears on its face that the Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases has been applied to Section 2241 cases. See Shover v. Brubaker, No. 17-CV-00518, 2017 WL 2114976, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-0518, 2017 WL 2080244 (M.D. Pa. May 15, 2017). This Court similarly exercises its discretion under Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases to apply those Rules to the present habeas case.
Rule 4 provides in relevant part that:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.In interpreting Rule 4, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 observe that:
28 U.S.C. § 2243 requires that the writ shall be awarded, or an order to show cause issued, “unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Such consideration may properly encompass any exhibits attached to the petition, including, but not limited to, transcripts, sentencing records, and copies of state court opinions. The judge may order any of these items for his consideration if they are not yet included with the petition.
In addition to ordering state court records and/or opinions, a federal habeas court may, under Rule 4, take judicial notice of those state court records and/or state court opinions as well as its own court records. See, e.g., Barber v. Cockrell, No. 01-CV-0930, 2002 WL 63079, at *1 n.4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2002) (in a Rule 4 case, the court took judicial notice of its own records of a prior habeas petition filed by the petitioner); United States ex. rel. Martin v. Gramley, No. 98 C 1984, 1998 WL 312014, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 1998) (in a Rule 4 summary dismissal, the court took “judicial notice of the opinion of the Illinois Appellate Court in this case.”).
B. Legal Analysis
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) to grant habeas relief to a state pretrial detainee who “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441-42 & n.5 (3d Cir. 1975) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). “Nevertheless, that jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent in the ordinary circumstance ‘pretrial habeas interference by federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal processes.'” Duran v. Thomas, 393 Fed.Appx. 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at 445-46).
A Section 2241 petitioner seeking to invoke this pretrial habeas jurisdiction must have exhausted state-court remedies, and must also make “a special showing of the need” for a federal court to adjudicate his petition at such an early junction. Moore, 515 F.2d at 443. If the petitioner has not exhausted his remedies, this Court may still adjudicate the petition if there are “extraordinary circumstances.” Id.
While this Court has jurisdiction under Section 2241 to entertain the Petition, it is clear that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief at this time. First, to the extent that Petitioner has raised any federal constitutional claims, he has failed to exhaust them. To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must “fairly present” it to each level of the state courts. Lines v. Larkins, 208 F.3d 153, 159 (3d Cir. 2000). Based on a review of the docket in Petitioner's underlying state criminal case, of which this Court takes judicial notice, it appears that Petitioner has failed to fully exhaust his claim. Petitioner must first exhaust his claim before all levels of the Pennsylvania courts and, if unsuccessful there, he may then present his claims to this Court in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Moore, 515 F.2d at 445 (observing that adequate state-court review remained available to the petitioner “at trial and thereafter, on appellate review”); Fullilove v. Glass, No. 16-CV-2143, 2017 WL 633851, at *1-3 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2017) (finding no special circumstances where Section 2241 petitioner's “sovereign citizen” claims could be “adequately raised at trial and in subsequent state proceedings”). Petitioner has not met this exhaustion requirement.
This Court may consider the instant pretrial habeas petition only if there are extraordinary circumstances. However, none are present here. Petitioner's sole argument is that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County has no jurisdiction over him because he is a so-called “sovereign citizen.” ECF No. 5 at 2 and 6-7. Petitioner's purported support for his argument is the holding Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000). ECF No. 5 at 8. Petitioner attaches an exhibit to the Petition which states that, in that case,
The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or Government. The court went on to define that local state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.ECF No. 5-1 at 1. However, a review of the opinion in Bond reveals that the United States Supreme Court did not discuss the comparable sovereignty of individuals versus that of the states or federal government. Instead, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of a suppression motion in a criminal case, and held that an exploratory squeeze of an opaque bag on a bus by a Border Patrol agent had violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Bond, 529 U.S. at 338-39.
Contrary to Petitioner's argument, it is well settled that “[a]ll Courts of Common Pleas have original jurisdiction over criminal proceedings.” Commonwealth v. Nixon, No. 1154 WDA 2013, 2014 WL 10588383, at *1 (Pa. Super. Sept. 12, 2014); Commonwealth v. McNeil, 665 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 1995). Likewise, “Pennsylvania trial courts have subject matter jurisdiction over criminal proceedings” for criminal code violations which occurred within the county of trial. Washington v. Sobina, 475 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2007). See also Pa. Const. art. V, § 5 (courts of common pleas have “unlimited original jurisdiction in all cases except as may otherwise be provided by law.”). Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner's sole claim for relief - that he somehow is immune to the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of Pennsylvania as a so-called “sovereign citizen” - clearly lacks merit.
Instead, Petitioner's “sovereign citizen” jurisdictional theory amounts to nothing more than spurious arguments that are patently frivolous. See Cruse v. Boey, No. 15-CV-302-DRH, 2015 WL 1726639, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 13, 2015) (quoting United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissing Section 2241 petitioner's “foreign state” sovereign citizen immunity argument as frivolous); Cofield v. United States, No. 14-2637, 2014 WL 1745018, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2014) (characterizing a Section 2241 claims based on redemptionist/sovereign-citizen beliefs as an abuse of the writ). See also Smithson v. York Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 15-cv-01794, 2016 WL 4521854, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:15-CV-01794, 2016 WL 4523985 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2016) (discussing hallmarks of specious “redemptionist” or “sovereign citizen” claims, including characterization of laws of general applicability and court rulings as “contracts” between the government and the litigant). See also Shover, 2017 WL 2114976, at *1-2 (characterizing sovereign citizen/redemptionist arguments in a Section 2241 petition as frivolous).
Petitioner's underlying claim is frivolous and abusive, and provides no “extraordinary circumstances” on which this Court could justify interference with the normal functioning of the state criminal process. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed.
Jurists of reason would not find it debatable that Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies, or that his underlying claim is frivolous and abusive, and provides no “extraordinary circumstances” on which this Court could justify interference with the normal functioning of the state criminal process. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should be denied Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition, ECF No. 5, be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).
Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.