Davis v. Betts

             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
             EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI                            
                   EASTERN DIVISION                                  

JADA DAVIS,                     )                                         
                           )                                         
                    Petitioner,  )                                   
                           )                                         
          v.               )            No. 4:23-cv-1595-MTS         
                           )                                         
VERNON BETTS,                   )                                         
                           )                                         
                    Respondent.  )                                   

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER                                  

This  matter  is  before  the  Court  on  Petitioner  Jada  Davis’s  Motion  for  Leave  to 
Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  
For the reasons explained herein, the Court will grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis and deny the Petition.                                           
                       Background                                    
Petitioner identifies herself as a pretrial detainee in the matter State of Missouri v. 
Jada Davis, 2322-CR00082-01 (22nd Jud. Cir. 2023).  According to the public records 
published on Missouri Case.net, Petitioner faces charges related to shooting at a person from 
a motor vehicle.  Here, Petitioner sets forth her claims in a confusing manner, but she seeks 
relief, in part, on the basis that Missouri lacks jurisdiction over her.  She identifies herself 
using terms including “Natural Person, Cherokee Nation-not enrolled, Moor-Muur.”  Doc. 
[1] at 1.  She asserts that she has the power to govern herself on her land without State 
interference and that her detention violates the treaties of Hopewell and Holston. 
Petitioner also claims she is innocent of the charges against her and that she was 
unlawfully arrested.  She seeks outright dismissal of the charges against her, and in her 
prayer for relief, she states she is entitled to dismissal of all charges because the State of 
Missouri failed to bring her to trial within 180 days.  Petitioner also seeks monetary relief, a 
waiver  of  the  fees  charged  to  tow  her  vehicle,  and  an  order  compelling  the  criminal 

prosecution of certain individuals.  She does not seek to compel a trial.   
                       Discussion                                    
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 
Courts provides that a district court shall summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it plainly 
appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.  Rule 4 applies to habeas petitions arising 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.  See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the “district 
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 

1(a)”).  Having reviewed the Petition pursuant to Rule 4, the Court finds it plainly appears 
that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the Court therefore will summarily dismiss the 
Petition.                                                                 
Generally, a state pretrial detainee can petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).  See Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634, 635 (8th Cir. 1981); Neville v. 
Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979).  Section 2241 does not impose an exhaustion 
requirement, but federal courts have held that petitioners ordinarily are required to exhaust 

state remedies before seeking federal relief.  See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court 
of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489–92 (1973); Sacco, 649 F.2d at 635–36.  If the issues raised in the 
petition can be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or other available state 
procedures, federal relief is unavailable.  See Sacco, 649 F.2d at 636.  A petitioner can avoid 
exhausting state remedies by demonstrating special circumstances.  See Braden, 410 U.S. at 
489.                                                                      
Petitioner indicates an intent to assert a claim premised upon her right to a speedy 
trial, but she does not proceed pursuant to the Sixth Amendment.  Instead, she can only be 
understood to proceed pursuant to an outdated version of Missouri’s Speedy Trial Act, which 

required a trial to commence within 180 days of arraignment.  Even if current Missouri law 
imposes that requirement, this Court would not have jurisdiction under § 2241 “to issue a 
writ of habeas corpus for violation of state law by state authorities.”  Cain v. Petrovsky, 798 
F.2d 1194, 1195 (8th Cir. 1986); accord Matthews v. Lockhart, 726 F.2d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 
1984) (explaining that, in the context of a § 2254 habeas petition, the “question of whether 
the state violated its own speedy trial statute is a matter for the state courts”).     
Petitioner also seeks relief on the basis that the State court lacks jurisdiction over her 

because she is a special, or sovereign, citizen.  Because there is no such thing as a sovereign 
citizen, such claims are, of course, frivolous, and this Court rejects the arguments without 
extended discussion.  See, e.g., United States v. Simonson, 563 F. App’x 514 (8th Cir. 2014) 
(per curiam) (stating that appellants’ argument “that they are special, sovereign citizens” was 
frivolous); United States v. Hardin, 489 F. App’x 984, 985 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) 
(rejecting as meritless appellant’s challenges to the district court’s jurisdiction based on his 
status as a sovereign citizen); United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983) (per 

curiam) (stating that appellant’s assertion that federal courts have no “civil jurisdiction over a 
sovereign citizen” was frivolous); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 
1992) (finding that arguments based on sovereign citizenship were completely meritless and 
would be rejected without expending court resources on discussion of them).   
Petitioner’s remaining claims can be raised in the state courts.  Petitioner has not 
demonstrated, and independent review does not show, that she has exhausted state remedies.  
In addition, Petitioner does not establish any special circumstances that would obviate the 
exhaustion requirement.  Petitioner is therefore not entitled to relief under § 2241.  See 
Braden, 410 U.S. at 489–92.                                               

It appears Petitioner also asks this Court to compel the criminal prosecution of certain 
people; however, the initiation of a federal criminal prosecution is not subject to judicial 
compulsion. See Ray v. United States Dept. of Justice, 508 F. Supp. 724, 725 (E.D. Mo. 
1981).  Under this Country’s constitutional framework, “the Executive Branch has exclusive 
authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”  United States v. 
Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974).  Petitioner also seeks monetary relief, but monetary relief 
is not available in an action filed pursuant to § 2241.  See Miller v. Nohe, 740 F. App’x 381, 

382 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).                                         
                      *    *    *                                    
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it plainly appears Petitioner is not 
entitled to relief and summarily dismisses the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.  Because Petitioner  has not made a 
substantial  showing  of  the  denial  of  a  constitutional  right,  the  Court  will  not  issue  a 
certificate of appealability.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).                   

Accordingly,                                                         
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, 
Doc. [4], is GRANTED.                                                     
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED.  A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith.  
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.  See 28 
U.S.C. § 2253(c). 
 Dated this 10th day of May 2024.              Th 
                                  fA T. SCHELP 
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE