United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JOSE E. RAMOS, Plaintiff,
SCOTT SEMPLE, Defendant.
RULING ON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ramos (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner currently
confined at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in
Suffield, Connecticut, filed an amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, challenging his state conviction for murder, in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a. Amended
Petition, ECF No. 12-1 (“Am. Pet.”).
Ramos raises four claims: (1) his state imprisonment is
illegal because he is “legally sovereign, free, and
immune from all claims and charges;” (2) his arrest was
illegal because the name on the warrant was Jose E. Ramos and
his actual name is Jose Eric Ramos; (3) his conviction
violates an international treaty; and (4) the state trial
court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is “a
living soul, breathing man, not a corporate fiction.”
Id. at 5-10.
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections
(“Commissioner”) has responded, contending that
Mr. Ramos has failed to exhaust his state court remedies on
any of these claims, and that, even if he had, each of the
claims is frivolous. Respondent's Response to Court's
Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 22 (“Resp't
Ramos's reply appears to be a more detailed memorandum on
his claims that does not address his failure to exhaust.
Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Response to
Court's Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 31
following reasons, Mr. Ramos's amended petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
a criminal trial, a jury convicted Mr. Ramos of murder and he
received a prison sentence of sixty years. State v.
Ramos, 178 Conn.App. 400, 403 (2017), Respondent
Appendix, ECF No. 22 (“Resp't App.”), Ex. C.
Ramos appealed his conviction and raised four claims: (1)
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction;
(2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence of
his post-Miranda silence; (3) the trial court committed
plain error by admitting prior misconduct evidence; and (4)
he was deprived of his right to due process as a result of
prosecutorial impropriety. Ramos, 178 Conn.App. at
402. The Connecticut Appellate Court rejected all four of Mr.
Ramos's claims and affirmed the conviction. Id.
Connecticut Supreme Court later denied discretionary review,
State v. Ramos, 327 Conn. 1003 (2018), Resp't
App. E, ECF No. 22-5, and the United States Supreme Court
denied Mr. Ramos's petition for writ of certiorari.
See Ramos v. Connecticut, 138 S.Ct. 2656 (2018),
Resp't App., Ex. G.
his direct appeal was pending, Mr. Ramos filed a petition for
a new trial under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-270. Pet. for
New Trial, Resp't App., Ex. H. Mr. Ramos claimed that one
of the state's witnesses had testified while she was
under the influence of psychedelic substances. Id.
Ramos also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
state court. Ramos v. Comm'r of Corr., No.
TSR-CV-16-4008151-S (Conn. Super Ct. June 27, 2016),
Resp't App., Ex. I.
September 7, 2018, Mr. Ramos filed a motion to correct an
allegedly illegal sentence in state court because he
“is not the defendant named in the charging instrument,
” and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction
over him. Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, Resp't
App., Ex. J. Mr. Ramos argued that he is a “sovereign
[who] is answerable only to God and conscience.”
See Id. at 11. The trial court denied his motion,
finding no legal basis to correct the sentence imposed.
State v. Ramos, No. KNLCR120119499 (Strackbein, J.),
2018 WL 5786064 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 16, 2018), Resp't
App., Ex. Mr. Ramos appealed the denial of his motion, which
remains pending. See State v. Ramos, No. AC42330
(Conn. App. Nov. 26, 2018).
December 7, 2018, Mr. Ramos moved to consolidate the petition
for new trial and habeas petition for trial purposes, which
the state court granted. See Ramos v. State, No.