govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-3_26-cv-00106-0

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MICHAEL WILLIAM JAMES,

Plaintiff,
v.

LAURA HARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SCREENING & NOTICE OF STRIKE
On March 4, 2026 , self-represented prisoner Michael William James
(“Plaintiff”) filed a “Bill by Complainant for Declaratory Decree for Status” and 282
pages of attachments. 1 This action is deficient. To properly commence a civil
action, a litigant must file a complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the District of Alaska Local Civil Rules, a civil cover sheet, and
either pay the filing fee of $40 5.00, or file a completed application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee.2 Additionally, to state a claim, a pleading must contain
a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” and “a demand for the relief sought.”3
The Court recognizes that documents filed by self -represented litigants are
to be construed liberally, and that federal courts must act with some leniency

1 Docket 1.
2 Local Civil Rule 3.1.
3 Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 2 of 8
toward those without legal training.4 But this leniency does not require the Court to
rewrite deficient pleadings or motions. 5 Nor can the Court provide legal advice or
act as a party’s attorney.6
The Court has now screened Plaintiff’s filings in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915, 1915A. Plaintiff has not alleged any legally recognized harms or injuries
traceable to any particular Defendants’ conduct that a court could possibly resolve,
and his claims lack an arguable basis in law and fact. 7 The Court finds that
according Plaintiff leave to cure the deficiencies in this case would be futile.
Accordingly, this case must be DISMISSED with prejudice. This dismissal counts
as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) , which may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring
future civil rights cases in federal court.
I. Screening Review of Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff identifies himself as “MICHAEL WILLIAM JAMES under Idaho File
#111-75-04436. Michael-William; Family [James], In Propria Persona, [Non-
Corporate Entity], in esse Sui Juris, a Pre-March 9, 1933 Private American
National of the Idaho (Republic), Injured Third Party Intervener and only Real Party
in Interest” and purports he is “not subject to the jurisdiction of the UNITED

4 See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
5 See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).
6 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 3 of 8
STATES OF AMERICA or any other fiction form of government.”8 Plaintiff attempts
to divide him self into two separate entities —a natural -born “Freeman” and a
corporate fiction—and suggests he should not be an “alleged Defendant” in State
of Alaska v. James, Case No. 4FA-11-00193CR.9
Plaintiff’s filings make it evident that he adheres to the same type of
“sovereign citizen” theories that have been flatly rejected by this nation's courts as
frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible. 10 “While many various subgroups and
ideologies may fall under the sovereign- citizen umbrella, the overarching unifying
principle is the belief that, even though they physically reside in this country, the
state and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no
authority to regulate their behavior.”11 The Ninth Circuit specifically has repudiated
such arguments as “utterly meritless.”12 The Court, “like others across the country,
concludes that ‘sovereign citizens,’ like all citizens of the United States, are subject
to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they reside,” including in this case, the laws

8 Docket 4.
9 Docket 1 at 4.
10 See also United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that contentions
based on sovereign citizen arguments are “frivolous” and that “courts ordinarily reject
similar contentions without extended argument.”).
11 Caetano v. Internal Revenue Serv., 2023 WL 3319158 at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2023),
report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4087634 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023).
12 United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting the sovereign
citizen “argument has been consistently and thoroughly rejected… advancement of
such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil
litigants who raise them.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 4 of 8
of the State of Alaska. 13 States have the inherent authority to charge individuals
with criminal offenses under their own statutes based on their sovereign police
powers, which are preserved by the Tenth Amendment and recognized by the
United States Supreme Court. 14 This authority allows states to define and punish
criminal conduct within their borders.15 Federal courts may not enjoin or otherwise
intervene in ongoing state criminal cases except in extremely narrow
circumstances,16 none of which are present in this case.
Plaintiff's claims, which are based on sovereign-citizen ideology, are
dismissed as frivolous. This dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), which may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future civil rights cases in federal
court.

13 El v. Ally Bank, 2022 WL 2904867, at *2 (D. Nev. 2022) (quotation marks and citations
omitted). See also United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir.
2011) (“Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a
‘sovereign citizen,’ a ‘secured-party creditor,’ or a ‘flesh-and-blood human being,’ that
person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected
summarily, however they are presented.”).
14 U.S. Const. Amend. X. See also Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of City of New
York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) (holding states can prosecute any individual found
within their jurisdiction for offenses committed within their jurisdiction against their
criminal law).
15 See, e.g., Bond v. U.S., 572 U.S. 844 (2014) (noting that the states have broad
authority to enact legislation for the public good, including the punishment of local
criminal activity, which is a clear example of traditional state authority).
16 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 5 of 8
II. The Three Strikes Rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner
receive a “strike” when a case he has filed in federal court is dismissed “as
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”17
The “three strikes” provision was “designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate
consideration of the good.” 18 Once a prisoner -plaintiff has accumulated three
strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any other civil rights cases in federal court
without prepaying the full filing fee unless he makes “plausible allegations” that, at
the time he filed the complaint, h e is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
19 Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready to take place”
or “hanging threateningly over one's head.” 20 It cannot be triggered solely by
complaints of past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.21 In addition
to being “imminent,” the alleged danger must also be “both fairly traceable to
unlawful conduct alleged in [the] complaint and redressable by the court.”
22

17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
18 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007).
19 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (adopting
nexus test).
20 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007).
21 Id. at 1053 (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its concern only
with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if
the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.”).
22 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (adopting nexus test).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 6 of 8
III. This case shall be unsealed
Plaintiff moves for the matter to proceed ex parte and under seal, asserting
that as a “Private American National of the union state of Idaho” his rights should
not “co-mingle” with “enemies, belligerents and rebels in the Public.”23 However,
the Court finds that this case need not remain under seal. In general, the public
has a right “to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents.” 24 Although access to judicial records is not absolute,
there is a “strong presumption in favor of access.” 25 “[A] court may seal records
only when it finds a compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling,
without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”26 The Court can order the unsealing
or redaction of any sealed document for the public record.27
Upon review, the Complaint does not include personal identifiers that must
be redacted or remain under seal. 28 However, because the attachments include
personal information that is unnecessary for this action, the attachments at
Dockets 1-1 through 1-5 shall remain under seal. The remainder of the case shall

23 Docket 1 at 2.
24 Kamakana v. Cty. and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
25 Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003).
26 Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir.
2016) (internal quotation, alteration, and citation omitted).
27 Alaska Local Civil Rule 7.3(f)(7).
28 Local Civil Rule 5.2 (establishing procedures for redacting personal identifiers in filed
documents or, where appropriate, seeking to file materials under seal).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 7 of 8
be unsealed.
IV. Warning re status requests
The undersigned has received reports that Plaintiff has made repeated and
excessive phone calls to the Court asking about the status of this case. The Clerk’s
Office staff may provide general information about procedure and docket activity
but cannot advise a party how to proceed, interpret rules, or predict how or when
the Court will issue an order. It is not permissible to write, telephone, or otherwise
try to directly communicate with the judge assigned to a case or chambers staff.
Repetitive calls to the Court will not expedite Plaintiff’s cases and unnecessarily
expends the Court’s limited resources.
V. Warning re Future Filings
Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party,
including one who is self -represented, files a pleading with the Court, they certify
“that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after
an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances the claims, defenses, and other
legal contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument” and “the
factual contentions have evidentiary support.”
29 Plaintiff is cautioned that the
continued filing of claims in the District of Alaska that Plaintiff knows, or should
know, will be dismissed may result in the entry of a vexatious litigant order by this
Court requiring prescreening of Plaintiff’s filings in this forum.

29 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2–3).
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 3:26-cv-00106-ACP, James v. Hartz, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 8 of 8
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED as frivolous .
2. This dismissal counts as a STRIKE.
3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk shall unseal the Complaint at Docket 1, but the attachments
at Dockets 1-1 through Docket 1-5 shall remain under seal.
5. The Clerk shall unseal this case, issue a final judgment, and close this
case.
DATED this 24 day of April, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Aaron Christian Peterson
AARON CHRISTIAN PETERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00106-ACP Document 2 Filed 04/24/26 Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight