Daren W. Hebold v. United States of America et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Maine
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00474
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

DAREN W. HEBOLD, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00474-LEW ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) ) Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL

Daren W. Hebold brings claims against the United States of America and several of its agencies and employees. See Complaint (ECF No. 1). In his pro se complaint, Hebold describes himself as “a Living flesh and blood man standing on the ground,” a “‘transient foreigner’ without legal domicile,” the holder “of the ‘Entity’ Cestui Que Vie trust Daren W. Hebold©, representing the Corporate Fiction: Daren Walter Hebold,” and a “State Citizen aka American National” rather than a “U.S. Citizen.” Id. at 6-7. He also attaches various Uniform Commercial Code financing statements as well as a document purporting to show the “discharge” of his birth certificate. See ECF Nos. 1-1 to 1-8. Ultimately, he asserts that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not a valid governmental agency and demands that it prove that he is a person who is legally obligated to pay taxes. See Complaint at 10-21. Hebold’s complaint bears all the hallmarks of sovereign citizen pseudolitigation. See, e.g., United States v. Gooch, 595 F. App’x 524, 527 n.1 (6th Cir. 2014) (“In general, sovereign citizens believe that the United States Government, including the IRS, is a fraud and that they . . . retain an individual common law identity exempting them from the authority of those fraudulent government institutions.” (cleaned up)). The legal theories Hebold asserts are

patently meritless and have been widely rejected by courts across the country. See, e.g., United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting, nearly forty years ago, a criminal defendant’s argument that she was “an absolute, freeborn and natural” person who did not have to pay taxes and noting that such arguments had “been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades” and were so “utterly meritless” that they warranted “serious

sanctions . . . on civil litigants who raise them”); Kauapirura v. United States, No. 23-CV-6167 (DG)(LB), 2023 WL 7687700, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2023) (collecting cases and noting that “courts have unequivocally dismissed” the idea that because a plaintiff “identifies as a sovereign citizen, [he] is not a taxpayer and [he] is excused from [his] tax obligations”). Accordingly, I recommend that the Court exercise its inherent authority and DISMISS Hebold’s complaint. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296, 307-08

(1989) (recognizing that district courts have the inherent authority to dismiss frivolous complaints). NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s order.

Dated: October 21, 2025

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge