Clinton v. Coyaleski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY KEITH CLINTON, ) CASE NO. 4:25-cv-1363

)

Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING

)

v. )

)

FSL ADMINISTRATOR ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

COYALESKI, et al., ) ORDER

)

Defendants. )

Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Keith Clinton, a federal prisoner at FCI Elkton, filed this Bivens

action against FSL Administrator Sara Coyaleski and FSL Notary Kayla Miller. (ECF No. 1). For

the reasons discussed below, the instant complaint is DISMISSED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of West Virginia issued a

superseding indictment charging Clinton with one count of felon in possession of a firearm and

four counts of drug trafficking. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 40, United States v. Clinton,

No. 3:17-cr-5 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 21, 2017). After proceeding to trial, the jury found Clinton guilty

of possession of a firearm convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e),

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),

possession with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(C), possession of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, and possession of cocaine

hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. Verdict, ECF No. 182, United States v. Clinton,

No. 3:17-cr-5 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 19, 2018). On August 27, 2018, Clinton was sentenced to a

264-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Judgment, ECF No. 205, United States v. Clinton, No. 3:17-cr-5 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 29, 2018).

Clinton is currently serving his sentence at FCI Elkton. (ECF No. 1, PageID #3).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se complaint must set forth

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief on its face. Id. at

471. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 678. Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the “allegations must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A pleading

that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

meet this pleading standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Even though the standard of review for pro

se pleadings is liberal, the generous construction afforded pro se plaintiffs has limits. Pilgrim v.

Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro se plaintiffs must still meet basic pleading

requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their behalf or “guess at the

nature” of their claims. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

Federal courts are also courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the

boundaries of their jurisdiction in every case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A “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 [the] 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).

III. DISCUSSION

Upon review, the Court finds that this action warrants dismissal for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with

Apple v. Glenn. Clinton’s complaint is largely incomprehensible, difficult to decipher, and does

not set forth cogent allegations with respect to either of the defendants. The complaint appears to

assert violations of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, Fourth Amendment’s right against

unreasonable search and seizure, and Fifth Amendment’s right against the taking of private

property without just compensation. (ECF No. 1, PageID #3). However, these claims appear

related to Clinton’s underlying arrest, trial, and conviction, there are no allegations of any conduct

or actions taken by the defendants, and there is no indication or logical inference that the

defendants have any connection to the asserted claims. To the extent the complaint can be

deciphered, it is largely premised on theories that Clinton’s federal rights were allegedly violated

in connection with his federal criminal conviction or incarceration because he is a “sovereign

citizen.” (Id. at PageID #5, 12–13). In the section of the complaint setting forth the facts

underlying his claims, Clinton states that “[t]hose who join a conspiracy take it as found it. Mr.

Gregory K. Clinton is a sovereign citizen.” (Id. at PageID #5). He further states that he seeks

“relief of rights of the sovereign” in the amount of “49 million 500 thousand dollars.” (Id.).

Clinton’s claims are premised on the proposition that he is a sovereign citizen and thus the

district court that presided over this trial and conviction lacked jurisdiction over him and his

conviction and incarceration violate his constitutional rights. This argument lacks any merit. See

United States v. Coleman, 871 F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2017) (collecting cases where circuit courts

have dismissed complaints based on sovereign citizenship). Courts have routinely rejected

arguments based on the theory of sovereign citizenship as frivolous and without extended

discussion. See, e.g., United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Courts

have been confronted repeatedly by [sovereign citizens’] attempts to delay judicial proceedings

and have summarily rejected their legal theories as frivolous.”); United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d

753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly rejected [the defendants’] theories of individual

sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.”); Charlotte v. Hansen, 433 F. App’x 660,

661 (10th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the sovereign citizen theory as having no conceivable validity in

American law); Bey v. McCandless, No. 1:22-cv-554, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56663, at *3 (N.D.

Ohio Feb. 28, 2023) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted in relevant part, 2023

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55598 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2023); Payne v. Klida, No. 15-cv-14127, 2016 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 14968, at *12–14 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016) (citing cases), report and

recommendation adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14649 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2016); Davis v.

McClain, No. 2:19-cv-3466, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194920, at *6–8 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8,

2019) (collecting cases that reject claims by prisoners that federal or state governments have no

jurisdiction over them because they are “sovereign citizens”); Muhammad v. Smith, No. 3:13-cv-

760, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99990, at *6–8 (N.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014) (“Theories presented by . .

. sovereign citizen adherents have not only been rejected by the courts, but also recognized as

frivolous and a waste of court resources.” ) (collecting cases). Simply put, Clinton’s arguments

and claims are frivolous and there is no basis to conclude that the Northern District of West

Virginia lacked jurisdiction over him.

To the extent that Clinton is attempting to challenge his conviction and sentence, it is

improper to do so in in a civil rights action. Beginning with Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973), federal courts have drawn careful lines between relief

properly considered in a habeas corpus action and relief that is proper to a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Since then, “[c]ourts have uniformly held that claims asserted by federal

prisoners that seek to challenge their convictions or imposition of their sentence shall be filed in

the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755-56 (6th

Cir. 1999) (cleaned up); see also Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500 (“[W]e hold today that when a state

prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he

seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”). Because Clinton challenges

the validity of his criminal conviction and sentence, his claims are generally not cognizable in a

civil rights action.

As previously explained to Plaintiff in a prior case before this Court, complaints like this,

which are based on meritless rhetoric frequently espoused by self-proclaimed sovereign citizens,

are frivolous and warrant summary dismissal “without extended discussion.” See Clinton v. Hon.

Gina M. Groh, No. 4: 25-cv-1279, slip op. at 4–5 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2025 (citing cases and

dismissing case filed by Plaintiff against the judge in his federal criminal case); Clinton v. Groh,

2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107525, No. 5:22-cv-230, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107525, at *3–6 (N.D.

W. Va. June 21, 2023) (overruling Clinton’s objections and dismissing his claims against the

district court on the basis of judicial immunity); see also Bey v. Weisenburger, No. 23-3689, 2024

WL 3912829, at *2 (6th Cir. June 5, 2024) (affirming dismissal of a plaintiff’s sovereign citizen

claims under Apple v. Glenn); Burnett v. Michigan, No. 1:24-cv-55, 2024 WL 3721741, at *7

(W.D. Mich June 18, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3466258 (W.D. Mich.

July 19, 2024) (citing cases and recommending dismissal of pro se complaint pursuant to Apple v.

Glenn where a plaintiff contended she possessed special status as a sovereign and was not subject

to federal or state laws). Notably, after filing several sovereign citizen-based complaints similar

to the one found here, the Northern District of West Virginia declared Clinton a vexatious litigant

and enjoined him from filing any new actions unless he paid the full filing fee or provided an

affidavit from attorney in good standing in the District “attesting that he or she has reviewed such

complaint or petition and that the factual allegations contained therein provide a good-faith basis

for venue in this Court.” Jn re Clinton, No. 1:22-mc-49, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241835, at □□□□

(N.D. W. Va. Dec. 14, 2022).

Given his status as a vexatious litigator in the Northern District of West Virginia, and that

this is now at least the fourth case filed in this District where his claims have been summarily

dismissed,' the Court reiterates its warning, issued to Clinton in Case No. 4:25-cv-1279, that he

may be sanctioned by being declared a vexatious litigator and subject to a filmg injunction if he

files any further complaints in this District based on frivolous theories, including those based on

sovereign citizenship. See Clinton v. Hon. Gina M. Groh, No. 4: 25-cv-1279, slip op. at 7.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and the Court’s

authority established in Apple v. Glenn. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 23, 2025 “Vad Hine

CHARLES E.FLEMING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

'Tn addition to Clinton v. Hon. Gina M. Groh, No. 4: 25-cv-1279, which this Court dismissed on August 18, 2025,

two other actions Plaintiff filed in this District have also already been summarily dismissed. See Clinton v. United

States, No. 25-cv-1010 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2025) (Pearson, J.); Clinton v. Trumble, et al., No. 25-cv-1644 (N.D.

Ohio Aug. 26, 2025 (Adams, J.).