A little known, but interesting, case was initiated by Paul Guthrie, aka Jedi Pauly, who filed two cases in the Federal Court of Indiana, claiming that he knows the ‘true meaning’ of the term ‘natural born citizen’.
Case 1: 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL, a petition for writ of mandamus, was filed, 14 January 2013, in the District Court of the Southern District of Indiana and was assigned to Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and referred to Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue (DKL) – Docket
Guthrie filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was approved by the Judge on 01/18/2013. On that same day, the judge ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction, under 28 USC 1915(e)(2):
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson wrote: In an action filed in forma pauperis, the court may raise on its own volition the issue of whether an action is malicious or frivolous under § 1915(e), and may test the complaint even before service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) grants the court the authority to dismiss the case at any time if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. If a complaint is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, it lacks an arguable basis in law and may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992).
The action is dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) as frivolous because the court lacks jurisdiction over Guthrie’s action. The plaintiff’s motion for an order directing service of process 3 is denied as moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
First of all, let me address the confusion that 28 USC 1915 applies only to prisoners. The courts have found that the term prisoner was meant to be persons and thus, 28 USC 1915 applies to any and all proceeding in forma pauperis.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The statute requires that a person seeking in forma pauperis status submit an affidavit including a statement of his or her assets. While the statute refers to “all assets such prisoner possesses,” courts have “reviewed the legislative history . . ., applied the basic axioms of statutory interpretation, and used a little common sense” to find that Congress’s use of the word “prisoner” in this provision was a typographical error. Floyd v. U.S. Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 275 (6th Cir. 1997), quoted in Jones v. N. Atl. Treaty Org., 1998 WL 136511, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Following Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in Floyd, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applies the affidavit requirement to nonprisoner litigants. Jones , 1998 WL 136511, at *1.
Courts have determined that 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) applies to non-prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis. See e.g., Newsome v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002)(affirming dismissal of non prisoner claims for frivolity and failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)); Cieszkowska v. Gray Line New York, 295 F.3d 204, 205-206 (2nd Cir. 2002)(affirming dismissal of in forma pauperis non-prisoner case for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)
Guthrie, apparently unaware with precedent had ‘argued‘ (you really have to read Guthrie’s documents as they are quite entertaining)
Said order is void also because Ms. Magnus-Stinson based her order on 28 USC 1915, which applies to prisoners, and not to Plaintiff Guthrie or his case. Such violation of the United States Code is an actual impropriety defined by Canon 3A subsections of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges, as opposed to an appearance of impropriety, and is the highest, most culpable ground for self-disqualification.
He even filed a separate motion for relief. If only he had studied the precedents.
01/29/2013 10 MOTION for Relief From Judgment and Order, filed by Plaintiff PAUL A. GUTHRIE. (JKS) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
2. It appears from the record that the Court may have mistaken Plaintiff Guthrie as a prisoner to which 28 USC 1915 applies, and denied service of process in this case based on this inadvertence.
3.Plaintiff Guthrie is not a prisoner as such term is defined by 28 USC1915(h), nor has he held himself out to be.
4.The Court’s order should be vacated because the Court may have mistaken Plaintiff Guthrie as a prisoner and exercised authority applicable only to prisoners, which would be to violate non-prisoner Plaintiff Guthrie’s rights to due process.
Guthrie continued to file an amended motion in which he added the Judge to the defendants.
Ms. Magnus-Stinson’s ruling and orders amount to a Hate Crime, Misprision of Felony, Misprision of Treason, and Conspiracy to Commit Treason, and is a total denial of the recognition of Plaintiff Guthrie’s native status as a natural born Citizen who has been enslaved under Magnus-Stinson’s foreign government.
- 01/29/2013 11 MOTION for Judge to Disqualify Herself, filed by Plaintiff PAUL A. GUTHRIE. (JKS) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
- 01/29/2013 12 MOTION for Court to Order Service of Process, filed by Plaintiff PAUL A. GUTHRIE. (JKS) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
Since Guthrie had filed the amended motion after the case had been finalized, it was rejected.
The judge eventually cleaned up the docket but not until Guthrie had filed many forest killing motions.
15 ORDER denying 11 Plaintiff’s Motion seeking disqualification. ***SEE ORDER***.. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/26/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
17 The plaintiff’s objection to the assignment of the undersigned 16 is without legal or factual basis and is therefore overruled. The post-judgment motion for relief from judgment, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment 10 , is denied. An amended complaint was filed after the entry of final judgment. The postjudgment motion for relief from the dismissal of the action has been denied. In light of these circumstances, the amended complaint is of no effect. The case remains closed. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/2/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
Undeterred, Guthrie tried again, and got a different judge. This time he did not apply to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid 28 USC 1915. However, the judge observed that even when plaintiff pays for the filing, the judge has ample discretion to dismiss the case sua sponte.
Since the previous case, filed by a pro-se in forma pauperis, had been dismissed under 18 USC 1915, the ruling was not on the merits and the new Judge allowed Guthrie to explain why the case should not be dismissed (again) as it raised the same issues that had been before the previous judge. While Guthrie was getting impatient and did not appreciate the 60 day rule for government entities, he filed a motion to compel, a motion for default judgment and a motion for declaratory judgment. The judge was not impressed.
District judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense. This is so even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service. Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003). This appears to be an appropriate cause in which to use authority.
The plaintiff is recycling claims put to rest in Guthrie v. Obama, et al., No. 1:13-cv-0080-JMS-DKL (S.D.Ind. Jan. 18, 2013). He shall have through April 18, 2013, in which to show cause why this action should not be summarily dismissed for the same reasons.
Proceedings except as just directed are stayed until further order.
Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/3/2013.(MAC) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
And she denied his pending motions without prejudice as they were premature.
Based on the partial stay issued on April 3, 2013, the motions filed on April 2, 2013 13 , 14 , 15 are each denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/9/2013. Copy sent to Paul Guthrie via US Mail. (DW) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
Guthrie decided to respond… More on that later
Having read Guthrie’s arguments, I am not impressed but at least he tried and managed to dedicate time and effort to putting his thoughts onto paper. It’s unfortunate that he lacked the requisite requirement of standing. I find it also regrettable that he failed to mention US v Wong Kim Ark.