John Basey v. Donald Trump, President, et al, No. 19-20218 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-20218 Document: 00515408082 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-20218 Summary Calendar FILED May 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHN LEE BASEY, Private American National Citizen American Freeman, Petitioner-Appellant v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Respondents-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-532 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Lee Basey, Texas prisoner # 01632916, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent Basey’s claims in his § 2241 petition attack the validity of his state conviction and sentence, and thus should have been construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application, a COA is required. See 28 U.S.C. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-20218 Document: 00515408082 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2020 No. 19-20218 § 2253(c)(1)(A); Hartfield v. Osborne, 808 F.3d 1066, 1071–73 (5th Cir. 2015). Basey’s timely notice of appeal is construed as a COA request. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b)(2). A prisoner will receive a COA only if he shows that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s decision to deny relief debatable or wrong, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), or “that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,” MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Because the district court adjudicated all the claims in Bailey’s first § 2254 application on the merits, this second challenge was successive, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007); see also United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, to the extent his application should have been dismissed on that basis, a COA is denied. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. To the extent Basey raises claims against the President and the Secretary of the Treasury for release of trust funds or other relief based on provisions of commercial and contract law and his status as a “private citizen,” such claims do not require a COA. However, they are patently frivolous and his appeal on those grounds is dismissed. COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
