Opinion
CV418-228
10-29-2018
DALLAS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed a Complaint identifying himself as "a flesh and blood, living natural human" and seeking to "reserve[] all unalienable rights, any derivative of prosperity contained in the attached UCC 1-308, and unalienable rights not mentioned in the UCC 1-308." Doc. 1 at 1. He has also filed a "notice" of his request for "diplomatic immunity." Doc. 3. Finally, he seeks to pursue this "case" without paying the Court's filing fee. Doc. 4.
Johnson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis discloses that he is a "self-employed audio engineer" and that his gross income from that occupation is $1,100 per month. See doc. 4 at 1. He reports over $1,000 in expenses, without listing any expenses for food or shelter. Id. at 2. Thus, it appears that Johnson is unable to pay the Court's filing fee. Given the apparent omissions from his motion, the Court might seek further financial information. Since his claim is frivolous, however, the Court need not waste any more time on the question.
His language has all the hallmarks of the "sovereign citizen" theory that has been consistently rejected by the federal courts as an utterly frivolous attempt to avoid the statutes, rules, and regulations that apply to all litigants, regardless of how they portray themselves. See, e.g., United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that courts routinely reject sovereign citizen legal theories as "frivolous") (citing United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 761-67 (7th Cir. 2011) (recommending that sovereign citizen theories "be rejected summarily, however they are presented")); Roach v. Arrisi, 2016 WL 8943290 at *2 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (noting that sovereign citizen theories have not only been consistently rejected by the courts, but they have been described as "utterly frivolous," "patently ludicrous," and "a waste of . . . the court's time, which is being paid for by hard-earned tax dollars") (cite omitted); United States v. Alexio, 2015 WL 4069160 at *3 (D. Hawaii 2015).
Johnson's pleadings repeatedly cite the Uniform Commercial Code, and so-called "sovereign citizens" often file "lots of rambling, verbose" pleadings that, inter alia, "rely heavily on the Uniform Commercial Code." United States v. Perkins, 2013 WL 3820716, at *1-2 (N.D. Ga. 2013). His reference to himself in the third person as "a flesh and blood, living natural human" is also typical of such frivolous sovereign-citizen claptrap. Trevino v. Florida, 687 Fed. Appx. 861, 862 (11th Cir. 2017) (dismissing as frivolous sovereign citizen lawsuit filed by a "living, breathing, flesh and blood human being"); Alexio, 2015 WL 4069160 at *3 (noting that sovereign citizens believe in a "somewhat mystical distinction between a 'person' and a 'human being'"). --------
Given the frivolity of Johnson's filings, his request to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED. Doc. 4. His case should be DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (requiring dismissal "at any time if the court determines that," inter alia, the action is frivolous). This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 29th day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA