Laura Marcos v. The Superior Court of Yavapai County, Arizona

1 WO MDR 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Laura Marcos, No. CV-25-08162-PCT-MTL (ASB) 10 Petitioner, v. ORDER The Superior Court of Yavapai County, Arizona, 14 Respondent.

16 Self-represented Petitioner Laura Marcos filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a “Motion to Enjoin Attorney Generals, Riverside General Hospital and New Jersey Registrar – Rule 19 Joinder” (Doc. 2), and a “Motion to Dismiss/Vacate Fugitive Extradition Hearings” (Doc. 3). She subsequently filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 5).

21 In her Amended Petition, Petitioner makes various contentions consistent with sovereign citizen ideology.* Such contentions are considered frivolous, and “courts ordinarily reject similar contentions without extended argument.” United States v. Ward, 182 F.3d 930, 1999 WL 369812, at *2 (9th Cir. 1999). For decades, claims of the sovereign citizen ilk have been repeatedly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and as * Among other things, Petitioner contends she is “operating exclusively under the protection of a Foreign Express Trust,” “[t]he name ‘LAURA MARCOS’ is private trust property held under UCC protections,” “[t]he use of trust name violates 15 U.S.C. § 1125,” and “[n]either New Jersey nor Arizona has no [sic] authority to arrest, extradite, or detain Petitioner.” frivolous or meritless. See United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992) 2| (holding defendant’s “sovereign citizen” arguments were “completely without merit” and 3| “patently frivolous”); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) 4| (describing “sovereign citizen” arguments as having “no conceivable validity in American 5) law”); Banks v. Florida, CV-19-00756, 2019 WL 7546620, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2019) 6| (collecting cases and stating that legal theories espoused by sovereign citizens have been | consistently rejected as “utterly frivolous, patently ludicrous, and a waste of .. . the court’s | time”) (citation omitted), R. & R. adopted, 2020 WL 108983 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2020). As 9| the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina succinctly put it, | Petitioner “cannot claim to be a sovereign independent of governmental authority while | simultaneously asking the judicial system to grant [her] recourse.” Harrison v. Gunnells, | CV-23-00584-RMG-MHC, 2024 WL 4682522, at *7 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2024).

13 Thus, the Court will dismiss the Amended Petition and this action. The Court will 14 deny as moot Petitioner’s pending Motions.

15| ITIS ORDERED: 16 (1) Petitioner’s Amended Petition (Doc. 5) and this action are dismissed.

17 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

18 (3) Petitioner’s “Motion to Enjoin Attorney Generals, Riverside General | Hospital and New Jersey Registrar — Rule 19 Joinder” (Doc. 2) and “Motion to | Dismiss/Vacate Fugitive Extradition Hearings” (Doc. 3) are denied as moot.

21 Dated this 14th day of October, 2025.

Mi Chak T. Sibude Michael T. Liburdi 25 United States District Judge -2-