Jolivette v. People of the State of California
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-04213
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Jolivette v. People, Judge Chen dismissed with prejudice a frivolous, duplicative petition seeking release from prison through an alleged tribal-court judgment.
Paul Patrick Jolivette’s petition was dismissed with prejudice, ending this action; the opinion does not describe any separate relief against the People of the State of California.
What happened
Paul Patrick Jolivette filed a petition seeking a court order requiring California to recognize and enforce an alleged judgment from the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court, including an order releasing him from prison. The case was Jolivette v. People of the State of California.
The court reviewed the petition under the required screening process for prisoner cases. It found the petition frivolous because it substantially duplicated an earlier petition filed by Jolivette in another federal district court, asserting the same legal theories and seeking enforcement of the same alleged judgment.
Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the action with prejudice because it was frivolous and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Jolivette v. People of the State of California · No. 3:19-cv-04213
- Edward Chen
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
Paul Patrick Jolivette, a prisoner at the California Men’s Colony, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he was subject to the laws of the Atlan Amexem Al Moroc tribal government and had obtained a judgment from the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court. According to the petition, that judgment required his release from state custody and from other obligations imposed by a California superior court.
The opinion describes several earlier federal actions in which Jolivette attempted to register or enforce the alleged Shaykamaxum judgment. The opinion also states that Jolivette had filed an earlier petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eastern District of California that was substantially identical to this one. Many pages appeared to be photocopies of the earlier petition, with only the signature dates changed. Although the two petitions named different governmental respondents, both asserted the same legal theories and sought enforcement of the same alleged default judgment.
Screening and Analysis
The court conducted the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for prisoner actions. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court concluded that this petition was frivolous because it duplicated the earlier mandamus petition. The court relied on decisions holding that repetitive litigation involving the same subject matter may be dismissed as malicious or frivolous.
The opinion notes that courts had been skeptical that the Atlan Amexem Al Moroc tribal government and the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court were genuine legal entities. It also states that neither entity appeared on the Bureau of Indian Affairs list of federally recognized tribal entities or the State Department’s list of independent states. Those observations provided background, but the stated basis for dismissal of this action was that the petition was duplicative and frivolous.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be “DISMISSED with prejudice because it is frivolous.” It directed the clerk to close the file. The opinion does not identify any separate ruling on the merits of whether the alleged judgment was enforceable.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.