United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MICHAEL WAYNE PARSONS, A Live Man, Ambassador, Tsilhqot'in Nation Tribal Member, Associate Chief Justice Universal Supreme Court, Tsilhqot'in Under Duress without Prejudice; Petitioner,
ANNE PAINE, Furnas County Judge; PENNY GREGG, Phelps County Jail LT; KURT KAPPERMAN, Sheriff, Furnas County NEB; and JOSEPH H. WALKER III, Tipton County Judge; Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on initial review of Petitioner
Michael Wayne Parsons' (“Parsons”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“petition”) filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Filing No. 1.) For the
reasons discussed below, the court will dismiss Parsons
petition with prejudice.
filed his petition while in custody as a pre-trial detainee
at the Phelps County Jail in Holdrege, Nebraska. (Filing
No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) He is currently confined at the
Tipton County Correctional Facility in Covington, Tennessee.
(Filing No. 10.) Parsons was being held in the
Phelps County Jail pursuant to a Complaint filed in Furnas
County, Nebraska alleging that Parsons was a Fugitive from
Justice. The Court in Tipton County, Tennessee had
issued a warrant for Parsons for Convicted Felon in
Possession of a Weapon. Id. Summarized and restated,
Parsons alleges in his petition that no court has
jurisdiction over him because he has diplomatic immunity as a
Tsilqot'in Ambassador and Associate Chief Justice of the
Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilqot'in. (See
Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.) He maintains that he
has been exonerated of all Tennessee charges via the
Universal Supreme Court of the Tsilqot'in. (Id.)
He seeks his immediate release and dismissal of the charges.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 8.)
is no longer in custody at the Phelps County Jail. He is in
custody at a facility in Tennessee. Therefore, Parsons is not
in the custody of anyone over whom the court has
jurisdiction. See similarly, Copley v.
Keohane, 150 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 1998). “It is true
that, if a district court has proper jurisdiction when a
habeas petition is filed, as is the case here, a subsequent
transfer of the prisoner will not defeat habeas jurisdiction,
but only ‘so long as an appropriate respondent with
custody remain[s]' in the district.”
Id.(quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S.
236, 243-44 (1963) (citing Ex parte Endo,
323 U.S. 283, 304-07 (1944)); see also
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973). Accordingly, this case is moot.
Additionally, the court has no authority to dismiss
Parson's charges in Tennessee.
that said, the court may transfer this matter to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee -
which comprises Tipton County - in the interest of justice.
28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought”). See
Braden, supra (finding that the state holding the prisoner in
immediate confinement acts as agent for the demanding state,
the custodian state is presumably indifferent to the
resolution of the prisoner's attack on the detainer, and
the action could be transferred to the district court in the
court finds that based on the frivolous nature of
Parsons' claims, it is not in the interest of justice to
transfer this matter. “[I]n the United States,
recognition by the Department of State is necessary to
establish diplomatic status and to claim the commensurate
immunity.” 4 Am. Jur. 2d Ambassadors, Etc. § 8.
The Tsilqot'in Nation is not recognized by the United
States Department of State. “A prisoner cannot write
his own get-out-of-jail-free card by making declarations that
amount to a renunciation of his obligation to conform his
conduct to the requirements of the nation's criminal
laws.” McCaskill v. Terris, No. 4:15-CV-11335,
2015 WL 4065893, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 2, 2015), aff'd
(Dec. 7, 2015) (citing examples).
Parsons petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as
a state prisoner he is subject to the provisions governing 28
U.S.C. § 2254 and therefore must obtain a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P.
22(b)(1). The standards for certificates (1) where the
district court reaches the merits or (2) where the district
court rules on procedural grounds are set forth in Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000). The court has
applied the appropriate standard and determined that Parsons
is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
case is dismissed with prejudice.
court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
court will enter judgment ...