United States District Court, D. Idaho
DETRICK CURTIS CONERLY, JOHN CRUZ MENO, MICHAEL AARON BONNER, and MICHAEL GRIFFITH, Petitioners,
PARAN LLP, Respondents.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Standard of Law
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
Discussion of Petitioners' Foreign Judgment
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.
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.
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.
Discussion of Petitioners' Claims for Invalidation ...