2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Ann Gates-Middleton and Ervin Case No. 2:21-cv-01944-GMN-DJA 6 Middleton, Jr.,
7 Plaintiffs, Order
8 v.
9 Guaranteed Rate, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Pro se plaintiffs Ann Gates-Middleton and Ervin Middleton have filed a complaint and 14 other documents with the Court but have yet to pay the filing fee for their case or apply to 15 proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs assert that they are not required to do either. (ECF No. 5, at 16 4). Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 9); a motion for summonses 17 (ECF No. 11); and a “motion for withdrawal of magistrate” (ECF No. 12). Because the Plaintiffs 18 have not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court cannot screen their 19 complaint or decide their motions. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 20 and 12) as moot and orders the Plaintiffs to either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma 21 pauperis by Friday, February 11, 2022. The Court finds these matters properly resolved without 22 a hearing. LR 78-1. 23 I. Background. 24 After Plaintiffs filed their initiating documents with the Court, the Court issued an 25 advisory letter, explaining that, if Plaintiffs wished to proceed without paying the filing fee— 26 known as proceeding in forma pauperis—they could submit the application. (ECF No. 2). The 27 Honorable District Judge Gloria M. Navarro then issued a minute order in which she ordered the 1 Plaintiffs to show cause why they met the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 2 1332. (ECF No. 4). 3 In response, Plaintiffs called into question the validity of the minute order and the 4 inclusion of the undersigned Magistrate Judge on the matter. (ECF No. 5). They also asserted 5 that “[w]e don’t HAVE to [f]ill out the obnoxious and intrusive ‘Informa Pauperis’ [sic] form, 6 and we are not going to.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs accuse the Court of “actively engaging in extorting 7 court fees...” (Id. at 5). 8 Plaintiffs then moved for clarification, asking why the undersigned Magistrate Judge was 9 still on their case, even though they did not consent. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiffs also moved for 10 summonses to be issued, asking why the Court has not yet issued them. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiffs 11 then re-filed their motion for summonses as a “Motion (Demand) for Withdrawal of Magistrate.” 12 (ECF No. 12). To date, Plaintiffs have neither paid the filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma 13 pauperis. 14 II. Discussion. 15 A. Plaintiffs must pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 Plaintiffs are not exempt from the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and this Court’s 17 Local Rules to pay a filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 18 (providing that the clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil 19 action…to pay a filing fee of $350…[and] additional fees…as are prescribed by the Judicial 20 Conference of the United States); see District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, UNITED STATES 21 COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule 22 (last visited January 12, 2020) (setting an administrative fee of $52 for civil actions in accordance 23 with 28 U.S.C. § 1914); see LSR 1-1 (providing that a person who is unable to prepay the fees in 24 a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and must use the form 25 provided by the court). Plaintiffs’ conclusion that they are not required to pay the fee or apply to 26 proceed in forma pauperis appear to come from their apparent adherence to the “sovereign 27 citizen” anti-government movement. As one court described it: Though the precise contours of their philosophy differ among the 1 various groups, almost all antigovernment movements adhere to a 2 theory of “sovereign citizen.” Essentially, they believe that our nation is made up of two types of people: those who are sovereign 3 citizens by virtue of Article IV of the Constitution, and those who are “corporate” or “14th Amendment” citizens by virtue of the 4 ratifications of the 14th amendment. The arguments put forth by these groups are generally incoherent, legally, and vary greatly 5 among different groups and different speakers within those groups. 6 They all rely on snippets of 19th Century court opinions taken out of context, definitions from obsolete legal dictionaries and treatises, 7 and misplaced interpretations of original intent. One of the more cogent[—]in the sense that it is readily followed—arguments is that 8 there were no United States citizens prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. All Americans were merely citizens of their own 9 state and owed no allegiance to the federal government. As a result 10 of that amendment, however, Congress created a new type of citizen—one who now enjoyed privileges conferred by the federal 11 government and in turn answered to that government.
12 One of the ramifications of this belief is the dependent belief that, unless one specifically renounces his federal citizenship, he is not 13 the type of citizen originally contemplated by the Constitution. And, 14 in their view, the Constitution requires all federal office holders to be the original or sovereign type of citizen, a state citizen rather than 15 a United States citizen. As a result, all federal officers are holding office illegally and their laws and rules are thus constitutionally 16 suspect. 17 Clarke v. Allen, No. 3:17-cv-00582-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 3510921, at *1-2 (D. Nev. 18 June 29, 2020) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605 (D. Md. 2005)). 19 Other courts have described a similar theory based on the belief that passing the 20 Fourteenth Amendment led to fictitious entities: 21 Supposedly, prior to the passage of the Fourteenth amendment, there 22 were no U.S. citizens; instead, people were citizens only of their individual states. Even after the passage of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment, U.S. citizenship remains optional. The federal government, however, has tricked the populace into becoming U.S. 24 citizens by entering into “contracts” embodied in such documents as birth certificates and social security cards. With these contracts, an 25 individual unwittingly creates a fictitious entity (i.e., the U.S. 26 citizen) that represents, but is separate from, the real person. Through these contracts, individuals also unknowingly pledge 27 themselves and their property, through their newly created fictitious entities, as security for the national debt in exchange for the benefits 1 Id. (quoting Bryant v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (W.D. Va. 2007)). 2 However, “[t]he attempt to divide oneself into two separate entities…is a legal fiction and 3 has been struck down consistently in courts and around the country.” Id. (internal citations and 4 quotations omitted). 5 As the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb aptly explained, “[t]his court, like 6 others across the country, concludes that ‘sovereign citizens,’ like all citizens of the United States, 7 are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside.” Id. (internal citations and 8 quotations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Ann Gates-Middleton and Ervin Case No. 2:21-cv-01944-GMN-DJA 6 Middleton, Jr.,
7 Plaintiffs, Order
8 v.
9 Guaranteed Rate, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Pro se plaintiffs Ann Gates-Middleton and Ervin Middleton have filed a complaint and 14 other documents with the Court but have yet to pay the filing fee for their case or apply to 15 proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs assert that they are not required to do either. (ECF No. 5, at 16 4). Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 9); a motion for summonses 17 (ECF No. 11); and a “motion for withdrawal of magistrate” (ECF No. 12). Because the Plaintiffs 18 have not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court cannot screen their 19 complaint or decide their motions. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 9, 11, 20 and 12) as moot and orders the Plaintiffs to either pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma 21 pauperis by Friday, February 11, 2022. The Court finds these matters properly resolved without 22 a hearing. LR 78-1. 23 I. Background. 24 After Plaintiffs filed their initiating documents with the Court, the Court issued an 25 advisory letter, explaining that, if Plaintiffs wished to proceed without paying the filing fee— 26 known as proceeding in forma pauperis—they could submit the application. (ECF No. 2). The 27 Honorable District Judge Gloria M. Navarro then issued a minute order in which she ordered the 1 Plaintiffs to show cause why they met the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 2 1332. (ECF No. 4). 3 In response, Plaintiffs called into question the validity of the minute order and the 4 inclusion of the undersigned Magistrate Judge on the matter. (ECF No. 5). They also asserted 5 that “[w]e don’t HAVE to [f]ill out the obnoxious and intrusive ‘Informa Pauperis’ [sic] form, 6 and we are not going to.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs accuse the Court of “actively engaging in extorting 7 court fees...” (Id. at 5). 8 Plaintiffs then moved for clarification, asking why the undersigned Magistrate Judge was 9 still on their case, even though they did not consent. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiffs also moved for 10 summonses to be issued, asking why the Court has not yet issued them. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiffs 11 then re-filed their motion for summonses as a “Motion (Demand) for Withdrawal of Magistrate.” 12 (ECF No. 12). To date, Plaintiffs have neither paid the filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma 13 pauperis. 14 II. Discussion. 15 A. Plaintiffs must pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 Plaintiffs are not exempt from the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and this Court’s 17 Local Rules to pay a filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 18 (providing that the clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil 19 action…to pay a filing fee of $350…[and] additional fees…as are prescribed by the Judicial 20 Conference of the United States); see District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, UNITED STATES 21 COURTS, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule 22 (last visited January 12, 2020) (setting an administrative fee of $52 for civil actions in accordance 23 with 28 U.S.C. § 1914); see LSR 1-1 (providing that a person who is unable to prepay the fees in 24 a civil case may apply to the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and must use the form 25 provided by the court). Plaintiffs’ conclusion that they are not required to pay the fee or apply to 26 proceed in forma pauperis appear to come from their apparent adherence to the “sovereign 27 citizen” anti-government movement. As one court described it: Though the precise contours of their philosophy differ among the 1 various groups, almost all antigovernment movements adhere to a 2 theory of “sovereign citizen.” Essentially, they believe that our nation is made up of two types of people: those who are sovereign 3 citizens by virtue of Article IV of the Constitution, and those who are “corporate” or “14th Amendment” citizens by virtue of the 4 ratifications of the 14th amendment. The arguments put forth by these groups are generally incoherent, legally, and vary greatly 5 among different groups and different speakers within those groups. 6 They all rely on snippets of 19th Century court opinions taken out of context, definitions from obsolete legal dictionaries and treatises, 7 and misplaced interpretations of original intent. One of the more cogent[—]in the sense that it is readily followed—arguments is that 8 there were no United States citizens prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. All Americans were merely citizens of their own 9 state and owed no allegiance to the federal government. As a result 10 of that amendment, however, Congress created a new type of citizen—one who now enjoyed privileges conferred by the federal 11 government and in turn answered to that government.
12 One of the ramifications of this belief is the dependent belief that, unless one specifically renounces his federal citizenship, he is not 13 the type of citizen originally contemplated by the Constitution. And, 14 in their view, the Constitution requires all federal office holders to be the original or sovereign type of citizen, a state citizen rather than 15 a United States citizen. As a result, all federal officers are holding office illegally and their laws and rules are thus constitutionally 16 suspect. 17 Clarke v. Allen, No. 3:17-cv-00582-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 3510921, at *1-2 (D. Nev. 18 June 29, 2020) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605 (D. Md. 2005)). 19 Other courts have described a similar theory based on the belief that passing the 20 Fourteenth Amendment led to fictitious entities: 21 Supposedly, prior to the passage of the Fourteenth amendment, there 22 were no U.S. citizens; instead, people were citizens only of their individual states. Even after the passage of the Fourteenth 23 Amendment, U.S. citizenship remains optional. The federal government, however, has tricked the populace into becoming U.S. 24 citizens by entering into “contracts” embodied in such documents as birth certificates and social security cards. With these contracts, an 25 individual unwittingly creates a fictitious entity (i.e., the U.S. 26 citizen) that represents, but is separate from, the real person. Through these contracts, individuals also unknowingly pledge 27 themselves and their property, through their newly created fictitious entities, as security for the national debt in exchange for the benefits 1 Id. (quoting Bryant v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (W.D. Va. 2007)). 2 However, “[t]he attempt to divide oneself into two separate entities…is a legal fiction and 3 has been struck down consistently in courts and around the country.” Id. (internal citations and 4 quotations omitted). 5 As the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb aptly explained, “[t]his court, like 6 others across the country, concludes that ‘sovereign citizens,’ like all citizens of the United States, 7 are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside.” Id. (internal citations and 8 quotations omitted). “Laws of the United States apply to all persons within its borders.” United 9 States v. James, 328 F.3d 953, 954 (7th Cir. 2003). “Regardless of an individual’s claimed status 10 of descent, be it as a ‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human 11 being,’ that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected 12 summarily, however they are presented.” United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 13 2011). 14 The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ theory that they are exempt from the requirement to pay the 15 filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs may either pay the full filing fee or— 16 if they cannot pay the filing fee—apply to proceed in forma pauperis on this Court’s approved 17 form. That form can be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/forms//. 18 B. The Court denies Plaintiff’s pending motions. 19 Because Plaintiffs have not paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis, 20 their case has not commenced. The Court thus denies their pending motions as moot. (ECF Nos. 21 9, 11, 12). However, considering the arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ motions, some additional 22 explanation is necessary here. 23 1. Consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 24 While Plaintiffs argue that they have not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate 25 Judge, a Magistrate Judge does not need the parties’ consent to be assigned to a case and decide 26 pretrial or referred matters. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), “a judge may designate a magistrate 27 judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court…” 28 U.S.C. 1 finally determine any pretrial matter not specifically enumerated as an exception in 28 U.S.C. 2 § 636(b)(1)(A).” LR IB 1-3. Additionally, the Local Rules provide that a District Judge may 3 refer a motion, petition, or application that a Magistrate Judge may not finally determine under 28 4 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to the Magistrate Judge to review and issue findings and recommendations 5 for disposition by the District Judge. LR IB 1-4. To put it simply, the undersigned Magistrate 6 Judge does not need any party’s consent to be assigned to this case and decide pretrial matters and 7 matters that the Honorable District Judge Gloria M. Navarro refers to him. 8 If the parties wish, however, to have the undersigned Magistrate Judge conduct the entire 9 civil trial or proceeding—rather than just deciding pretrial matters and referred matters—they 10 must consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(a). This is not automatic. Rather, after Plaintiffs have 11 either paid the filing fee or applied to proceed in forma pauperis1 the Court will provide the 12 parties with a link to the “AO 85 Notice of Availability and Order of Reference – Exercise of 13 Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge” form by which the parties can consent to the 14 undersigned’s jurisdiction if they so choose. 15 2. Issuing summonses. 16 The Court has similarly not issued Plaintiffs’ summonses because they have neither paid 17 the filing fee nor applied to proceed in forma pauperis to start their case. Because they have done 18 neither, their complaint is not properly filed. It is the filing of the complaint that triggers 19 Plaintiffs’ ability to present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 4(b). Because the Plaintiffs have not properly filed the complaint by paying the filing fee or 21 applying to proceed in forma pauperis and having their claims survive the screening process, they 22 are not entitled to have summons issued. 23 24 25 1 If the Plaintiffs decide to apply to proceed in forma pauperis, their claims must also first pass 26 the Court’s screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing for the sua sponte dismissal 27 of the complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant); see Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 9, 11, and 12) are 2 denied as moot because Plaintiffs have yet to pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma 3 pauperis. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs must either pay the full $402 filing fee 5 (which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee) or file a completed application 6 to proceed in forma pauperis on the Court’s approved form by Friday, February 11, 2022. The 7 Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail Plaintiffs the approved form application to proceed in 8 forma pauperis along with the information and instructions for filing it. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiffs do not pay the full filing fee or file a 10 complete application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before Friday, February 11, 2022, the 11 Court will recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice. 12 13 DATED: January 12, 2022 14 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27