Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Conerly v. Paran LLP

United States District Court, D. Idaho

August 14, 2019

DETRICK CURTIS CONERLY, JOHN CRUZ MENO, MICHAEL AARON BONNER, and MICHAEL GRIFFITH, Petitioners,
v.
PARAN LLP, Respondents.

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Detrick Conerly has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of himself and three other persons, John Cruz Meno, Michael Aaron Bonner, and Michael Griffith. This case was reassigned to this Court for lack of all parties' jurisdictional consent to a United States magistrate judge. Dkt. 9. Having reviewed the Petition, the Court enters the following Order.

         REVIEW OF PETITION

         1. Factual Background

         Petitioners asserts that they filed in the Ada County, Idaho state court-for the purpose of obtaining full faith and credit-two state judgments from the Court of Common Pleas in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania cases are entitled “Bonner, Conerly and Cruz Meno v. Paran LLP.” However, the Ada County judges presiding over those matters revoked Petitioner's registration of the foreign judgments in Idaho because the foreign judgments were not properly authenticated as valid judgments. Dkt. 3-1, pp. 11, 16. In addition, Ada County Magistrate Judge David Manweiler entered an “Order Prohibiting Additional Filings” in the case after Petitioners' appeal was dismissed as frivolous. Dkt. 3-1, p. 56.)

         Seemingly unrelated to his actions against Paran LLP, Petitioners also attach to the pleading several exhibits showing that he attempted to have a writ of execution issued on an alleged judgment in his favor entered against Chase Bank for the sum of $2, 526, 780, 000.00.

         Petitioner is being held in an Idaho state prison under an Idaho state conviction. He asserts that he and Petitioner Michael Griffith are “sovereign.” Dkt. 3, p. 3. Because they are “sovereign, ” he asserts, they must be released from incarceration immediately, because the criminal statutes of Idaho apply only to “persons, ” not “sovereigns.” Id. Petitioner asserts that, because subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged in any court, he, John Meno Cruz, and Michael Aaron Bonner should be permitted to challenge their Idaho state court convictions. Only Conerly and Bonner have signed the Petition. Only Conerly has submitted an application for in forma pauperis status.

         2. Standard of Law

         Federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available to petitioners who show that they are held in custody under a state court judgment and that such custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine whether it is subject to summary dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id.

         3. Discussion of Petitioners' Foreign Judgment Claims

         Petitioner has attached many pages of legal documents from his Pennsylvania cases. However, as the Idaho state court found, none is a certified judgment. Rather, the documents are nonsensical and do not show that anyone owes Petitioners anything. For example, Petitioners' “Judgment by Confession” states that Defendants give general power of attorney to Plaintiffs that permits them power over “[a]ll the accounts, assets, intangible or otherwise” of Defendants and gives Petitioners authority to enter into contracts on behalf of Defendants. Dkt. 4-1, p. 11. Further, the Judgment states that, because Petitioners are “sovereigns, ” “no one can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over [them] without their expressed consent, ” and “[a]nyone who restricts [their] liberty will be charged twenty-five thousand dollars U.S. (lawful money) for every twenty three minutes of restriction of liberty in any form.” Id.

         Even if Petitioners' civil judgments were enforceable, they have selected the wrong procedural vehicle for enforcement. A habeas corpus case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is a limited cause of action designed for challenges to state criminal convictions and sentences.

         For all of the above reasons, Petitioners' claims for enforcement of foreign judgments will be dismissed. Because the claims are frivolous, they will be dismissed with prejudice.

         4. Discussion of Petitioners' Claims for Invalidation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.