Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1319 (UNA)
06-12-2018
ANTOINE M. HILL-EL, Petitioner, v. CALVIN JACKSON, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review of petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner describes himself as a Moorish American National. See Pet. ¶¶ 4, 10. After having been convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, see id. ¶¶ 4, 6, petitioner challenges the court's authority over him, see id. ¶¶ 5-6. Petitioner's status as a Moorish American does not place him beyond the reach of federal or state law. See, e.g., United States v. Toader, 409 F. App'x 9, 13 (7th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as frivolous arguments "that the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over [the defendant] and that the laws he is charged with violating are inapplicable to him because he is a Native Asiatic Moorish National Citizen"); Pitt-Bey v. District of Columbia, 942 A.2d 1132, 1135-36 (D.C. 2008) (rejecting claims that criminal defendant was "immune from prosecution in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia" and that he "should be accorded diplomatic immunity pursuant to federal law" based on his status as a member of The Nation of Moorish Americans).
Because the petition "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 213, 325 (1989), it is frivolous and subject to dismissal, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), 1915A(b)(1); see also United States v. Miller, No. 06-0207, 2016 WL 10833537, at *4 (D.D.C. May 27, 2016) (rejecting as frivolous Moorish American's challenge to conviction and detention on the ground that courts and prisons were "'denationalizing' him in violation of the Eighth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution"); James-Bey v. United States, No. 14-1101, 2014 WL 11904576, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 30, 2014) (dismissing as "patently frivolous" claims that Moorish American plaintiff is not subject to the laws of the United States), aff'd, 598 Fed. App'x 788 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
/s/_________
United States District Judge DATE: 6/12/18