Opinion
Case No. 09-1330.
December 1, 2009
ORDER
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner, Ricky Vivrette's ("Vivrette"), Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition [#1] is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Although the Petition is far from a model of clarity and borders on incoherent, it appears that Vivrette was taken into custody on a commitment order stemming from a warrant in the state of Wisconsin. He is currently being held in the Livingston County Jail. He challenges his confinement based on claims that he is not a U.S. citizen under the jurisdiction of any of its courts, as he is his own "freeborn sovereign" under the Uniform Commercial Code. As a result, Vivrette argues that he cannot be held against his will and is independent of any laws except those prescribed by nature.
Although courts have a duty to construe the pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, the petition may be dismissed without holding a hearing or ordering the government to respond if the record conclusively establishes that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. Gallo-Vasquez v. United States, 402 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2005). Dismissal is proper where the allegations raise no cognizable claim or are unreasonably vague, conclusory, or incredible. Oliver v. United States, 961 F.2d 1339, 1343 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, Vivrette's argument that he is not the type of person to whom state and federal laws apply is virtually unintelligible, frivolous, and utterly devoid of any basis in the law. United States v. Raymond, 78 F.Supp.2d 856, 880 (E.D.Wis. 1999) see also, United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991) (applying same reasoning in the context of a tax protestor.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Vivrette's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [#1] is DENIED. This matter is now terminated.