In Arthur Woods v. Mobile Alabama Police Department, et al., Mr. Woods proceeding pro se, sued various defendants, including the Mobile Police Department, multiple officers, and even the United States of America and its agencies. His allegations ranged from harassment and assault to kidnapping and false imprisonment, culminating in a demand for millions of dollars in damages. However, the court quickly identified numerous legal deficiencies in his complaint, leading to its dismissal as an impermissible shotgun pleading—a type of overly broad, vague, and disorganized filing that hinders judicial review.
From the lawsuit: 
The court observed that his complaint contained irrelevant legal theories such as references to treason and constitutional violations unrelated to his claims.
Woods asserted that law enforcement and government agencies had no authority over him. This claim has been universally rejected by courts, yet it remains a cornerstone of sovereign citizen arguments.
When ordered by the court to correct the deficiencies in his complaint and refile it properly, Woods refused to comply. The court even sent his a book on how to proceed pro se which he ignored. Instead, he doubled down on his sovereign citizen rhetoric by filing a statement on March 3, 2025, asserting that he was a “sovereign living man under common law” and that he was “terminating” his request to proceed without paying filing fees. He further stated, “I do not understand, I do not accept, and I do not consent.” This language mirrors common sovereign citizen obstructionist tactics, where litigants attempt to dismiss judicial authority by claiming they do not consent to it. Courts have consistently ruled that consent is not required for legal jurisdiction, making these arguments legally ineffective.
The court ultimately found that Woods had abandoned his case by failing to file an amended complaint. As a result, it recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Woods’ case is just one of many where sovereign citizen tactics have led to self-sabotage rather than legal victories. By rejecting established legal procedures, filing incoherent complaints, and attempting to outmaneuver the court using unfounded legal theories, sovereign citizens often end up with dismissed cases, fines, or even criminal charges for obstruction or fraud. While their tactics can temporarily stall proceedings and create headaches for court officials, they ultimately fail when challenged by established legal principles.
The sovereign citizen movement continues to spread misinformation, luring in individuals who believe they can circumvent the law through paperwork tricks and linguistic gymnastics. However, as seen in Woods’ case, courts remain firm in rejecting these tactics, reinforcing that no one is above the law—no matter how they phrase it.
You can support my work here. It is always greatly appreciated.
Citation: Woods v. Mobile Alabama Police Dep’t, No. 25-00031-TFM-B, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (2025).