Glover v. South Carolina

19 Citing cases

  1. Woods v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    C/A 6:24-cv-00502-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2024)

    ; United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by party that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). As such, the plaintiff's sovereign citizen claims are subject to summary dismissal.

  2. Griffin v. Santander Consumer U.S.

    C. A. 6:23-cv-06366-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2024)

    ); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by party that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). Moreover, his request that this court find two representatives from the arbitration proceedings engaged in the unauthorized practice of law is also frivolous in nature.

  3. Griffin v. First Progress

    C. A. 6:23-cv-04454-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented.”); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by party that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). As such, even if the plaintiff had brought his case into proper form, it would still be subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.

  4. Griffin v. T-Mobile

    C. A. 6:23-cv-04453-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2023)

    , C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017),

  5. Griffin v. State Farm

    C. A. 6:23-cv-04452-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2023)

    ; United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by party that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). As such, even if the plaintiff had brought his case into proper form, it would still be subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.

  6. Woods v. Brookside Pointe Apartments

    C. A. 6:23-cv-05108-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2023)

    United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (describing the “sovereign citizen” theory as having “no conceivable validity in American law”); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (defendant claimed he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States; however, the court found this argument to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejected it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed, No. 17-6846, 2017 WL 5197454 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff is asserting claims in this case based on the sovereign citizen theory, his claims are subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.

  7. Woods v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    6:23-cv-4812-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Oct. 11, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by defendant that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (describing the “sovereign citizen” theory as having “no conceivable validity in American law”); United States v. Chatman, No. 4:17-cv-01556-RBH, 2017 WL 3704832, at *1 (D.S.C. July 28, 2017), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 3676587 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2017); Glover v. South Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., No. 17-6846, 2017 WL 5197454 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017). In light of these cases and the allegations presented, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief and is therefore subject to summary dismissal on this basis alone.

  8. Rufus v. Weigle

    C. A. 3:23-cv-04421-DCC-KFM (D.S.C. Sep. 15, 2023)

    (describing the “sovereign citizen” theory as having “no conceivable validity in American law”); United States v. Chatman, C. A. No. 4:17-cv-01556-RBH, 2017 WL 3704832, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. July 28, 2017), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 3676587 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 716 Fed.Appx. 204 (4th Cir. 2018); Glover v. South Carolina, C. A. No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). As such, the undersigned recommends that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

  9. Zaatnure Xi-Amaru v. Brimm

    8:23-cv-04306-DCC-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2023)

    (describing the “sovereign citizen” theory as having “no conceivable validity in American law”); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (defendant claimed he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States; however, the court found this argument to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejected it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed, No. 17-6846, 2017 WL 5197454 (4th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017). Thus, to the extent Appellant is asserting claims in this case and/or premising his appeal based on the sovereign citizen theory, his claims are subject to summary dismissal as frivolous.

  10. Young v. Spartanburg Cnty. Det. Facility

    C. A. 6:23-cv-02378-MGL-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    ; United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (explaining claim by party that he was “outside” the jurisdiction of the United States to be “completely without merit” and “patently frivolous” and rejecting it “without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion”); Glover v. South Carolina, C/A No. 5:16-cv-00969-JMC, 2017 WL 1836982, at *1 n.1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom., 700 Fed.Appx. 306 (4th Cir. 2017). As such, the plaintiff's sovereign citizen claims are subject to summary dismissal.