United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
J. Hale, Judge United States District Court
Ashley Elizabeth Adkins initiated this pro se action
by filing a document captioned as a “‘Writ of
Execution' Judicial Order Enforcing Judgment”
(Docket No. 2). Upon review, this action must be dismissed
for the reasons stated herein.
heading of the initiating document, Petitioner references the
Jefferson District Court and lists three state-court case
numbers. The filing states the following:
Ashley-Elizabeth; Adkins, Sui Juris, the Living Woman,
Claimant Protected American State National, comes now by
 Claimant's “Living Testimony in form of an
Affidavit; a Challenge of Her Rights, Status, Standing &
Jurisdiction; a Notice of Discovery of Fraud and Impropriety;
a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and Demand for Remedy; and Claim for
Compensation;” document was entered into the court and
public record: September 27th, 2018 and October 24th, 2018.
Claimant's “Living Testimony in form of an
Affidavit . . .” document was served upon Judge Webb,
Attorney Meihaus, Public Defender Forbush-Moss, Gaurdian Ad
Litem Meschler and CHFS Worker B. Wheeler, signed by
certified return receipt mail, September 27th, 2018 and
October 12th, 2018.
used by Petitioner; emphasis by Petitioner omitted). The
filing discusses an affidavit which Petitioner apparently
signed. It states, “Truth as a valid statement of
reality is sovereign in commerce; An unrebutted affidavit or
declaration stands as truth in commerce; An unrebutted
affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce;
Guaranteed - All men/women shall have a remedy by the due
course of law . . . .” The only claim for relief the
Court can discern in the filing is Petitioner's statement
As One of “We the People” I do hereby politely
and with honor, command you, our public servants; to follow
this Mandate directive and 1) Dismiss and Cancel the
Illegitimate Trial scheduled for the 13th day of December,
2018; 2) Dismiss all Charges with extreme Prejudice; 3)
Eliminate the Record; and Void Ab Initio.
by Petitioner omitted). To this filing, Petitioner attaches
several documents, including purported affidavits and
documents promoting “sovereign citizen” beliefs.
district court “may, at any time, sua sponte
dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally
implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). The
“‘Writ of Execution'” and its
attachments evince that Petitioner's claims are premised
on “sovereign citizen” theories, which have
“been uniformly rejected by the federal courts”
for decades. Smith v. Hens, No. 13-14013, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 100838, at *2-3 n.1 (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2014).
“Sovereign citizen” arguments are
“recognized as frivolous and a waste of court
resources.” Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-CV-760
(MAD/DEP), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99990, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. July
23, 2014); see also United States v. Amir, 644
Fed.Appx. 398, 399 (6th Cir. 2016) (rejecting a criminal
defendant's attempts “to argue that he is not a
citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the
‘Republic of Ohio,' to whom our federal courts'
jurisdiction does not apply.”). Claims based on
“sovereign citizen” theories may be dismissed
without “extended argument” as patently
frivolous. United States v. Ward, No. 98-30191, 1999
U.S. App. LEXIS 9255, at *5-6 (9th Cir. May 13, 1999);
see also United States v. McQuarters, No. 11- 51386,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165189, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11,
2013) (finding that “sovereign citizen” arguments
“‘are totally implausible, attenuated,
unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, [and] no longer
open to discussion'” (quoting Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d at 479), report and recommendation
adopted, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164785 (E.D. Mich. Nov.
upon review of Petitioner's “‘Writ of
Execution'” and its attachments, the Court finds
that this action meets the standard set forth in Apple v.
Glenn. Therefore, this action must be dismissed for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Court will enter a separate Order dismissing the instant