DIXON v. WARDEN, No. 1:2020cv03286 - Document 2 (D.N.J. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/1/2020. (rtm, )(nm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DIXON v. WARDEN Doc. 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE PHILIP DIXON, Petitioner v. WARDEN [FCI Fort Dix], Respondent : : : : : : : : : : CIV. NO. 20-3286 (RMB) OPINION BUMB, District Judge Petitioner Philip Dixon, a prisoner confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey (“FCI Fort Dix”), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging he is a sovereign citizen who is unlawfully detained by the federal government. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) This matter is now before the Court for screening pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), which provides that the Court shall dismiss the petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief ….” Rule 4 is applicable to petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, pursuant to Rule 1, Scope of the Rules. I. DISCUSSION Petitioner seeks release from federal prison because he does not recognize the authority of the federal government and its laws. Dockets.Justia.com “Sovereign Citizen” claims are frivolous. See U.S. v. Young, 735 F. App’x 793, 795-96 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts”); Yun v. New Jersey, No. 18CV1804KM-SCM, 2019 WL 913155, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019) (“It is well established that “sovereign citizen” arguments, while made with some regularity, are patently frivolous) (citations omitted); Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559, 561 (7th Cir. 2017) (same); U.S. v. Glover, 715 F. App’x 253, 255 (4th Cir. 2017) (same); Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 F. App’x 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019) (same). II. CONCLUSION Petitioner’s claim is frivolous and the petition will be dismissed with prejudice. Dated: April 1, 2020 s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge
]]>
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.
