Edward Barreiro Trevino v. The State of Florida

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15389
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-02036-CEM-DAB
EDWARD BARREIRO TREVINO,
In Propria Persona,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
2 Courthouse Square #2000,
Kissimmee, FL 34741,
d.b.a. Leslie A. Hess,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 4, 2017)
Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Trevino, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint as frivolous. After review,1 we affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
Trevino’s legal arguments, including that Florida has no jurisdiction over
him because he is a “natural born, free . . . [l]iving, breathing, flesh and blood
human [being]” and that he must be released because Florida breached a security
agreement with him, are frivolous. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100
(11th Cir. 2008) (“A claim is frivolous if and only if it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” (quotation omitted)); United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d
228, 233 n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that so-called “sovereign citizens” are
individuals who believe they are not subject to courts’ jurisdiction and that courts
have summarily rejected their legal theories as frivolous); United States v. Benabe,
654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases and noting that a court should
summarily reject arguments that a person is beyond a court’s jurisdiction because
he is a “sovereign citizen,” “secured-party creditor,” or “flesh-and-blood human
1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s sua sponte dismissal for frivolity
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), mindful of the fact that pro se pleadings are to be liberally
construed. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
being”). In addition, Trevino’s factual allegations that he is a party to some sort of
secured transaction requiring Florida to release him are clearly baseless. See
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). If Trevino seeks to challenge
his conviction, habeas corpus, and not § 1983, is the proper avenue. See Wilkinson
v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 81 (2005). Finally, leave to amend the complaint
would have been futile because a more carefully drafted complaint could not save
Trevino’s claims. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007)
(“Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still
be properly dismissed . . . .”).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-15389 Date Filed: 05/04/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --