Hopper v. Addams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DANNY HOPPER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:24-cv-02129-TLB

DAVID ADDAMS (SSA Office Manager,

Individual and Official Capacity) DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge,

referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.

The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Under this provision, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a Plaintiff seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 10, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff checked the

section of the form indicating he was bringing it as a Bivens claim. (Id. at 3). When asked what

federal constitutional or statutory right he believes has been violated, he states: “The right to

correct my citizenship from United States Citizen to what I was born as a State Citizen or other

term National of the U.S.A.” (Id.). He alleges that his citizenship was incorrectly recorded on a

Social Security administration form SS-5. (Id. at 4). He states that he was incorrectly listed as a

United States Citizen. (Id.). He states the correct status is “a National of the U.S.A.” (Id.). He

further alleges he submitted a “Declaration of Citizenship Status of National of the U.S.A.” (Id.).

He alleges he was then given a printed reply that a U. S. National is the same as a U. S. citizen.

(Id.). Plaintiff disagrees, states that “they are playing word games,” and he wants his citizenship

status corrected. (Id.). Plaintiff’s only factual allegation against Defendant Addams is that he was

an office manager who was consulted by one of the SSA staff before they stamped his SS-5 form.

(Id.). In the section of the form where Plaintiff is to indicate how he was injured, he states no

injuries other than stress to his heart condition, sleep, anxiety, repeated trips to the SSA office, and

certified mail. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff signs his name to the form using lower case letters with a colon

between his middle name and his last name, a reference to “UCC 1-308” and the phrase “without

prejudice.” (Id. at 6).

Plaintiff attaches a document entitled “Explanatory Declaration of Citizenship Status” to

his Complaint form. (ECF No. 1-1 at 1-5). This document is a classic example of a sovereign

citizen document. It is largely incomprehensible, consisting of references to the UCC, “the United

States Corporation,” federal statutes, and case cites bound together with twisted and legally

incoherent logic.1 Plaintiff refers to himself as danny-dewayne:hopper;beneficiary, without

0F

prejudice, without the UCC 1-308 by my signature. (Id. at 1-1 at 4). His signature is written as

danny-dewayne:hopper; beneficiary.2 (Id. at 5). He then attaches several pages of legal materials,

1F

1 See generally Federal Bureau of Investigation Domestic Terrorism Unit, Sovereign Citizens: An

Introduction for Law Enforcement, available at https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-

SovereignCitizens.pdf (last accessed Oct. 18, 2024).

2 Sovereign citizens believe the United States Government needed collateral to participate in global

trade after removing the United States currency from the gold standard. As a result,

[t]hey claim the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral by selling their

future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans.

This sale, sovereign citizens claim, takes place at birth with the issuance of a birth

certificate and the hospital advice to apply for a Social Security Number for the

baby. . . . Sovereigns say that the government then uses that birth certificate to set

up a corporate trust in the baby’s name – a secret U.S. Treasury account. . ..

Sovereign citizens believe that by setting up this Treasury Direct Account (TDA),

every newborn’s rights are split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby

and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account, evidenced, they claim,

a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating his benefits, a birth certificate, and an

application for a social security card. (Id. at 6-18).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being

issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are

frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or

it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to

vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re

Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we

hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is

by the fact that most certificates use all capital letters to spell out a baby’s name –

JOHN DOE,” for example. They falsely attribute this all-capital version to the

actual name of the corporate shell identity, also called a “straw man,” while “John

Doe” without all caps is the baby’s “real,” flesh-and-blood name.” Southern

Poverty Law Center, Sovereign Citizens Movement, available at

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-

citizens-movement (last accessed Oct. 15, 2024).

discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe

the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal

framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). However, the complaint must still allege

specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal because they are based solely on sovereign citizen

ideology and principles. It is well-established in the Eighth Circuit that claims based on sovereign

citizen ideology are inherently frivolous and should be summarily dismissed as a waste of judicial

resources. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding the sovereign

citizen issues in the case “are completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected

without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion.”); United States v. Hart,

701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983) (rejecting “sovereign citizen” as a status); Meyer v. Pfeifle, No.

4:18-CV-04048, 2019 WL 1209776, at *5 (D.S.D. Mar. 14, 2019), aff'd, 790 F. App'x 843 (8th

Cir. 2020) (“[plaintiff's] allegations regarding rights as a ‘sovereign citizen’ are frivolous and fail

to state a claim”); King v. Turnbull, No. 4:21CV3003, 2021 WL 1293307, at *2 (D. Neb. Apr. 7,

2021) (claim that Nebraska statutes and laws do not apply to a sovereign citizen dismissed as

frivolous); Engel v. Corizon, No. 4:20-CV-1744-HEA, 2021 WL 1105351, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar.

23, 2021) (“Arguments based upon sovereign citizen ideology have been summarily rejected as

frivolous and irrational in this Circuit and in other federal courts around the nation.”); U.S. v.

Mooney, No. 16-CV-2547 (SRN/LIB), 2017 WL 2352002, at *3 (D. Minn. May 31, 2017) (noting

sovereign citizen “arguments have been thoroughly and consistently rejected by courts throughout

this country”); see also United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 761-67 (7th Cir. 2011)

(recommending that sovereign citizen arguments “be rejected summarily, however they are

presented”); Haywood v. Texas Realator, No. 3:22-CV-02174-K-BT, 2023 WL 5597346, at *3

(N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:22-CV-02174-K-BT, 2023

WL 5604130 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023) (sovereign citizens “cannot claim to be sovereigns

independent of governmental authority while they simultaneously ask the judicial system to grant

them recourse”).

Plaintiff’s Complaint is clearly based on sovereign citizen ideology and principles. As

such, his claims are inherently frivolous and should be summarily dismissed as a waste of judicial

resources.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 21st day of October 2024.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE