Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00996-BNB
04-23-2012
WARREN DANIEL CLINTON, real party in interest, Applicant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Applicant, Warren Daniel Clinton, is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado. Mr. Clinton initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court must construe the Application liberally because Mr. Clinton is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se litigant's advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Application and the action will be dismissed.
In the Application, Mr. Clinton asserts one claim for "Humanitarian, Terrorism and Humanitarian Grounds". He alleges, inter alia, that he is an "alien, free holder, nultied [sic] corporation, unincorporated, land owner, real party in interest pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 17(a), of sound mind, body and soul . . . ." Application at 6. He purports to renounce his United States citizenship and presents a "Certificate of Death" in which he "hereby acknowledge, affirm, attest, stipulate, agree, and certify that the identified artificial entity, also known as legal name, a/k/a straw-man, a/k/a moral person . . . 'Warren Daniel Clinton' is clearly and unequivocally, pronounced and declared, "Dead" . . . . Id. The Application continues in this bizarre fashion for eleven pages.
Mr. Clinton's attempts to effect his release from the custody of the BOP by alleging that he has relinquished his United States citizenship or by declaring himself dead are legally frivolous. Mr. Clinton is entitled to no relief on his claims as a matter of law. A claim is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A legally frivolous claim rests on "an indisputably meritless legal theory," such as a claim that a non-existent legal interest has been infringed. Id. In addition, a claim is factually frivolous if it depicts "fantastic or delusional scenarios," id. at 328, or where "the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court authorizes a district court to conduct an initial screening of petitions and to dismiss unworthy requests for habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4. Rule 4 has also been found to permit sua sponte dismissal of a habeas petition that raises legally frivolous claims or factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. See, e.g., Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (citing Advisory Committee's Note on Habeas Corpus Rule 4 which requires the petition "to state facts that point to a real possibility of a constitutional error"); see also Montero v. Bush, 107 Fed. Appx. 180, 181 (10th Cir. Aug. 11, 2004) (unpublished opinion) (dismissing a petition brought pursuant to § 2241 as "fantastic[,] delusional and factually frivolous."). The Court finds that Mr. Clinton's claims rest on "an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Applicant files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Application and the action are dismissed as legally frivolous. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of April , 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court