Arguments like “I am a sovereign citizen” or “the § 2255 deadline is unconstitutional” do not work in federal court. Judges reject them quickly. Former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle’s post-conviction filings are an example.
Fogle is serving a federal sentence for child pornography offenses. After receiving a 188-month sentence, which he appealed without success, he filed a “Motion to Correct Clear Error Pursuant to Rule 52(b).”
In it, he argued the court had no jurisdiction over him because he is a “sovereign citizen.” He relied on a “Motion to Enter Amicus Curiae Brief” filed by another prisoner, which claimed that “whether a judicial judgment is lawful depends on whether the sovereign has authority to render it.”
Why do “sovereign citizen” arguments fail?
Federal courts have never accepted them. The Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana where Fogle was sentenced, has called these arguments frivolous and told lower courts to reject them summarily, however they are presented. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011).
Judge Tanya Walton Pratt did that. Calling the motion “frivolous,” she wrote: “Title 18 U.S.C. §3231 provides that the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the states on all offenses against the United States. The district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over Fogle’s criminal proceedings.”
What about challenging the one-year deadline?
Fogle also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The judge warned him it would be treated as a § 2255 motion unless he withdrew it. He then filed a “Constitutional Challenge to §2255(f)(1-4),” arguing that the one-year deadline unconstitutionally suspends the writ of habeas corpus.
The judge rejected that argument too: “The AEDPA one-year filing limitation does not, as Fogle argues, act to suspend a petitioner’s right to file a writ of habeas corpus. Rather, it imposes a congressionally-intended limitation in order to further the well-established goal of finality in criminal convictions.”
The judge treated the “constitutional challenge” as a request to withdraw the filing she had recharacterized as a § 2255 motion. That meant Fogle still had his first § 2255 motion available. See recharacterization.
What is the lesson?
Frivolous filings waste time and can use up your one full § 2255 motion. Federal courts do consider real, well-supported § 2255 claims, and there are many legitimate ways to challenge a conviction or sentence.
Source: orders of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in United States v. Fogle (S.D. Ind.), as described above.
Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.