United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the
Medium Security Institution, has filed his petition on the
grounds that he believes he has been unlawfully restrained
and deprived of his rights because as a
“White…American Indian, …Indigenous
Moor” he does not believe he can be lawfully imprisoned
by the State of Missouri. The petition will be summarily
dismissed due to petitioner's failure to exhaust his
state court remedies.
to Missouri.Case.Net, petitioner was served with an arrest
warrant on March 11, 2014. He was subjected to a grand jury
indictment on April 1, 2014. Petitioner was charged with:
unlawful possession of a firearm; resisting arrest by
fleeing; two counts of possession of a controlled substance;
and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. All of the counts
against petitioner were felonies except for the last count.
Petitioner was able to post bond on August 4, 2014, in a
surety amount of $50, 000. See State v. Fullilove,
No. 1422-CR00351-01 (22nd Judicial Circuit, St.
Louis City Court).
February 24, 2015, petitioner failed to appear for a hearing,
and he had his indigency status revoked, leaving him without
assigned counsel. On March 16, 2015, when he again failed to
appear in Court, petitioner had his $20, 000 of his bond
revoked, and a capias warrant was issued for his arrest.
Petitioner was not served with the warrant until August 18,
2015. At that time, the Court reset the bond to $10, 000 and
authorized the petitioner to again post bond, in an amount of
$10, 000. Petitioner posted bond on September 10, 2015. On
January 29, 2016, petitioner again failed to appear, and a
capias warrant was again issued for petitioner. The Court
ordered a bond forfeiture hearing scheduled. Petitioner has
since remained in custody.
December of 2015, petitioner indicated that he wished to
represent himself in his criminal matter. The Court ordered,
after a hearing on the matter on February 6, 2017, that
petitioner should be able to represent himself and that
copies of discovery should be sent to him at the Medium
and Supplemental Filings
noted above, petitioner alleges that he is a Moor and he
states that he is a “sovereign citizen, ” by
virtue of his Moorish religion. In other words, it appears
that he believes that his “nationality” gives him
a status in the United States of an “indigenous people,
” not subject to the laws of the Constitution, the
Federal Government or the State of Missouri. Like many of the
prior Moorish cases before this Court, petitioner argues that
“Europeans” are latecomers to the United States
and Moors never granted the European Americans citizenship.
Thus, petitioner argues that American laws cannot deprive him
of his rights and privileges.
present action, petitioner asserts that he “is being
forcibly restrained in the jail through an unconstitutional
act made criminal by an unconstitutional law created by an
unconstitutional statute.” He claims that his bond was
excessive and in violation of his “indigenous rights,
” and the Courts processed him through “forced
assimilation” and “destruction of their
request for relief, petitioner seeks “immediate
discharge from imprisonment” and “to dismiss the
delving into the discussion in this matter, the Court feels
compelled to address petitioner's supplemental filings in
this matter. Petitioner has attempted to file a number of
supplements to his petition in this matter. All of the
supplements are signed by a non-party to this action, someone
petitioner has designated as a “lawful power of
and foremost, the Court does not accept supplements to a
pleading without leave of Court. Adding claims by
interlineation and supplements is extremely confusing to the
Court, and it is not allowed. See Popoalii v.
Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th
Cir.2008) (finding that it is appropriate to deny leave to
amend a complaint when a proposed amendment was not submitted
with the motion). Rather, if petitioner wished to add to his
claims he should have submitted an entirely new amended
petition that encompassed the entirety of his claims. As
such, the Court will only look at the claims that are
encompassed within his original petition.
petitioner has not sought leave to have someone act as his
representative in this matter pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.17, nor
has the individual who has attempted to file supplements on
his behalf indicated that she is an attorney authorized to
practice law before this Court. The Court will not accept
filings from this individual, one Sionya Haley. All of
petitioner's supplements to his petition will be stricken