Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fullilove v. Glass

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

February 16, 2017

MICHAEL FULLILOVE, Petitioner,
v.
DALE GLASS[1], Respondent.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241[2]. 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.

         Procedural Background

         Accordingly 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).

         On 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.

         In 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 Security Institution.

         Petition and Supplemental Filings

         As 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.[3]

         In the 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 culture.”[4]

         In his request for relief, petitioner seeks “immediate discharge from imprisonment” and “to dismiss the case.”

         Before 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 attorney.”

         First 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.

         Additionally, 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 as ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.