The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JERRI “MEGAN” TORRES,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:21-cv-892-TPB-JSS
PASCO COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
FREE PASSAGE THROUGH MARSHAL’S CHECK POINT”
This matter is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Free Passage
Through Marshal’s Check Point,” filed pro se on April 13, 2022. (Doc. 92). After
reviewing the motion, court file and record, the Court finds as follows:
In her motion, Plaintiff seeks “free passage” through the security checkpoint
of the federal courthouse “by right of self-determination/governance.” She asserts
that she was denied entrance on April 7, 2022, after supplying a “diplomatic
passport” from “the State Society of Christopher Nation.” She was permitted to
appear at a hearing telephonically after she refused or declined to provide valid
government-issued identification.
Congress has charged the United States Marshals Service and the Secretary
of Homeland Security with protecting the federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 566(a) (“It is
the primary role and mission of the United States Marshals Service to provide for
the security and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders of the United States
District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals, the Court of International
Trade, and the United States Tax Court, as provided by law.”); United States v.
Smith, 426 F.3d 567, 576 (2d Cir. 2005). After the events of September 11, 2001, a
new policy requiring photo identification was implemented to protect federal
buildings and courthouses. Id. at 570. Although some individuals have filed suit,
insisting on a constitutional right to enter a federal courthouse without providing
identification, these challenges have been soundly rejected. See, e.g., Haas v.
Monier, No. NH CA 08-169 MML, 2009 WL 1277740, at *7 (D.N.H. Apr. 24, 2009)
(collecting cases). To be clear, “the governmental interest in safeguarding
courthouses is paramount . . . and a request by [the] marshal for identification is a
reasonable and limited measure to ensure that courthouse security is maintained.”
Gardner v. Caddo Parish Sheriff Office, No. CIV.A. 12-1916, 2013 WL 654152, at *1
(W.D. La. Feb. 5, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 638890, at
*1 (W.D. La. Feb. 21, 2013).
Plaintiff does not assert that she does not possess a valid government-issued
form of identification, or that she cannot afford a fee associated with obtaining such
identification. Instead, she is upset that the marshal would not accept a homemade
passport from a fictitious, nonexistent state. But even if Plaintiff believes that she
is a sovereign of the “Christopher Nation” and does not recognize the authority of
the United States of America or State of Florida, that does not make her exempt
from the requirement to produce a valid government-issued identification to enter
the federal courthouse. If she does not wish to produce such identification to enter
the courthouse for hearings or trial, she cannot enter the building.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of
April, 2022.
we □ a fF
f i IS
| | / / f A
pubs
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3