United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on review of a document filed
by pro se petitioner Nycere Ezekiel Bey, a/k/a Curtis L.
Flanagan, which has been construed as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons
discussed below, the petition will be dismissed.
October 19, 2018, petitioner filed a document with the Court
titled “writ to dismiss under federal rules of evidence
rule 201.” (Docket No. 1 at 1). The filing was
construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Within the document, petitioner
references two Missouri criminal cases: State of Missouri
v. Flanagan, No. 18SL-CR01374-01 (21st Jud.
Cir., St. Louis County), in which petitioner was charged with
two counts of filing a false lien, two counts of forgery, and
two counts of tampering with a judicial officer; and
State of Missouri v. Flanagan, No. 17SL-CR09616-01
(21st Jud. Cir., St. Louis County), in which
petitioner was charged with forgery and filing a false
lien. At the time petitioner filed this action,
these cases were pending. However, petitioner has since been
convicted and sentenced in both cases.
states that he is an “indigenous moor” and a
member of the ancient American Yisrael nation. (Docket No. 1
at 1, 4). As such, he asserts that he is not subject to the
“foreign jurisdiction” of the United States.
(Docket No. 1 at 4). Moreover, he claims that he is not a
U.S. citizen or national, and that he does not reside within
a federal zone, state, or territory of the United States.
Petitioner also claims that he is the “beneficial
owner/entitlement holder and 1stlien holder of
en[s] legis” Curtis L. Flanagan.
seeks an order dismissing his state criminal cases and
granting his immediate release. (Docket No. 1 at 8). He
asserts that the State of Missouri lacks jurisdiction over
him, and that accordingly, he is being falsely imprisoned.
(Docket No.1 at 5). Specifically, he states that he is not a
U.S. citizen, subject, resident, member, ward, employee, or
franchise of Missouri, and that he has not given written,
oral, or implied consent to jurisdiction.
claims that he should be released from incarceration because
the State of Missouri has no jurisdiction over him and he has
not consented to the actions against him. Attached to the
petition are one-hundred-thirty (130) pages of exhibits,
including, but not limited to: a document from the Internal
Revenue Service assigning Curtis Flanagan an employee
identification number; a “Declaration of
Ownership” in which petitioner states that he is the
registered owner of Curtis Flanagan's birth certificate;
a document purporting to be an “Abjuration of
Citizenship”; an indemnity agreement between Curtis
Flanagan and Nycere Bey; and a copy of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The thrust
of the petition and the attached exhibits is that petitioner
is a uniquely independent entity not subject to the laws of
the United States or the State of Missouri.
terminology, phrases, and arguments used by petitioner are
similar to the type propounded by so-called “sovereign
citizens.” Sovereign citizens believe they are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and often deny they
are the defendants in a particular action. See United
States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1
(11th Cir. 2013). Such jurisdictional arguments
have been deemed frivolous. See United States v.
Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983)
(stating that appellant's assertion that federal courts
“have no civil jurisdiction over a sovereign
citizen” was frivolous); United States v.
Simonson, 563 Fed.Appx. 514 (8th Cir. 2014)
(stating that appellants' argument “that they are
special, sovereign citizens” was frivolous); and
United States v. Hardin, 489 Fed.Appx. 984, 985
(8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting as meritless
appellant's challenges to the district court's
jurisdiction based on his status as a sovereign citizen).
has unsuccessfully raised this argument before, in other
civil cases filed before this Court. See Bey v. Calverton
Park Police, No. 4:12-cv-1459-CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 23,
2012); Bey v. City of Ferguson Police, No.
4:12-cv-1460-HEA (E.D. Mo. Aug. 27, 2012); and Bey v. St.
Louis Cty. Police Dep't, No. 4:12-cv-1461-SNLJ (E.D.
Mo. Aug. 31, 2012). Indeed, petitioner recently brought a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 action nearly identical to the instant
case, seeking release from the same state criminal cases
because of a lack of jurisdiction. Bey v. Childrey,
No. 4:18-cv-494-NAB (E.D. Mo. Apr. 3, 2018). That case was
denied and dismissed as frivolous. Petitioner has provided no
basis for a different outcome in the case presently before
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts provides that a district court shall
summarily dismiss a habeas petition if it plainly appears
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4 applies
to habeas petitions arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases (stating that the “district court may apply any
or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered
by Rule 1(a)”). As discussed above, petitioner premises
his request for relief on a discredited argument that the
state court lacks jurisdiction over him. Thus, it plainly
appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief on his
§ 2241 petition and the petition will be summarily
dismissed. Further, because petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,
a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Docket No. 1) is DENIED AND
DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of
dismissal will be entered herewith.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a