Whitney v. Guterres, CV-17-693
| Decision Date | 26 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-17-693,CV-17-693 |
| Citation | 2018 Ark. 133 |
| Parties | JAMES EDWARD WHITNEY APPELLANT v. ANTONIO GUTERRES, SECRETARY GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS, ET AL. APPELLEES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF; PRO SE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITH EXCEPTION TO RULE 4-7 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT [LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 40CV-17-44]
APPEAL DISMISSED; PETITIONS MOOT.
Appellant James Edward Whitney appeals from the denial of a pro se petition to proceed in forma pauperis and the denial of a request to file an affidavit of sovereignty. Pending before this court is Whitney's petition for an extension of time to file his appellate brief. Also pending is Whitney's subsequent pro se petition for leave to proceed with exception to Rule 4-7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, wherein he alleges that the Lincoln County circuit clerk has refused to provide him with a file-marked copy of the proceedings below, preventing him from filing his brief in compliance with this court's rules.
An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including civil postconviction remedies, will not be permitted to go forward when it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Brown v. State, 2017 Ark. 232, 522 S.W.3d 791; Justus v. State, 2012 Ark. 91. This court has treated civil proceedings such as declaratory-judgment actions as applications for postconviction relief in those instances in which a prisoner seeks relief from the conditions of his or her incarceration. Neely v. McCastlain, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424.
The record demonstrates that Whitney filed in the circuit court a petition to proceed in forma pauperis alleging that he was being illegally detained, and he sought indigent status for the purpose of filing an "affidavit of sovereignty" declaring that he is not a citizen of the United States or subject to its laws. Thus, Whitney's affidavit of sovereignty sought relief from the conditions of his incarceration; it is, therefore, treated as an application for postconviction relief. Neely, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424. Because it is clear that Whitney cannot prevail in his appeal from the circuit court's order denying both his petition to proceed in forma pauperis as well as his request to file an "affidavit of sovereignty," this appeal is dismissed, which renders Whitney's petition for an extension of time to file his brief and his petition for leave to proceed with exception to Rule 4-7 moot.
The right to proceed in forma pauperis is governed by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (2016). Rule 72(c) conditions the right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters upon, among other things, the court's satisfaction that the alleged facts indicate a colorable cause of action. Penn v. Gallagher, 2017 Ark. 283. A colorable cause of action is a claim that is legitimate and may reasonably be asserted given the facts presented and the current law or a reasonable and logical extension or modification of it. Id.
In his in forma pauperis petition, Whitney named international and federal officials as well as officials of Arkansas and Michigan.1 Whitney sought to file, without payment of fees, an affidavit of sovereignty that declared, among other things, that citizenship has never been conferred on him by either the United States government or the state governments of Michigan and Arkansas.2 Whitney further asserted in his affidavit of sovereignty that he is subject only "onto the kingdom of YHWH." Whitney certified that the affidavit had been mailed to the named respondents. The purpose of the affidavit was to establish that Whitney is not subject to federal and state laws and is therefore being illegally detained as "[he] is neither to bend to or conform with their ways or practices . . . [but rather] operate[s] as a vessel, ambassador for the expression of the government of the Kingdom of YHWH." Whitney's affidavit declaring himself outside the reach of the laws of this state is wholly without merit, as the State of Arkansas has the authority to enforce its laws with regard toconduct that occurs within its territorial borders. See State v. Alexander, 222 Ark. 376, 259 S.W.2d 677 (1953); Goodman v. State, 153 Ark. 560, 240 S.W. 735 (1922).
The circuit court denied Whitney's in forma pauperis petition and denied his request to file the affidavit of...
To continue reading
Request your trial