Hansen v. State of Nebraska et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5- Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page1of9

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
May 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
PAUL JOHN HANSEN, §
Plaintiff,
Vv. Civil Action No. H-26-3422
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Paul John Hansen, identifying himself as “one of the People of Texas,” filed
a pro se civil complaint for trespass of property against PayPal Holdings, Inc. and the State
of Nebraska. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He does not state that he is in
custody of any federal, state, or municipal detention or correctional facility at this time.

Having considered the complaint, matters of public record, and the applicable law, the
Court DISMISSES this lawsuit with leave to amend for the reasons explained below.

I. BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS

Plaintiff's complaint is difficult to follow due to his reliance on sovereign-citizen-style
arguments. Liberally construed, the complaint alleges that PayPal Holdings, Inc. and the
State of Nebraska trespassed against plaintiff's property at an unspecified location by
removing funds from his PayPal account to pay back taxes he owes to the State of Nebraska.

Plaintiff seeks itemized damages in an amount of $45,860.38.

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5- Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 9

Plaintiffreferences his blog or website in his complaint. (Docket Entry No. 1, 43.19.)
In an attempt to better understand plaintiff's obscure pleadings, the Court has reviewed the
blog and its links to several business websites maintained by plaintiff under his own name.
The Court takes judicial notice of plaintiff's multiple websites, as cited herein. Plaintiff
describes himself in these websites as a “student of territorial specific law and constitutional
limitations of the US and STATE Governments” who “know{[s] how to utilize ‘common law
courts of record’ for every act on American soil.” He denies being a United States citizen
and identifies as “a ‘free inhabitant’ pursuant to Article 4 of The Articles of Confederation.”

See http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?author=2 (last visited on May 1, 2026); see also

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?page_id=2 (last visited on May 1, 2026).

Plaintiff offers for sale on his websites instructional materials and “legal expertise”
services for handling taxes, preventing government interference, and living “independent of
the constitutional corporate US governments,” state laws, and court systems. See, e.g.,
https://freeinhabitant.info/counseling-fees/counsel-time-available-by-paul-john-hansen.htm
(last visited on May 1, 2026). Although plaintiff refers to himself as “technically a lawyer”
on his websites and charges $35.00 per hour for “legal counseling,” he is not a licensed
attorney. See State ex rel. Comm. on Unauth. Prac. of Law v. Hansen, 286 Neb. 69, 834
N.W.2d 793 (2013) (affirming injunction issued by Nebraska Commission on Unauthorized

Practice of Law enjoining plaintiff from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law).

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5- Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 9

The Court sets out this additional background information not to denigrate plaintiff
or his beliefs, but because his pleadings incorporating these judicially rejected’ ideologies
and tenets deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

Il. JURISDICTION

Plaintiff claims that he filed this lawsuit “In the Superior Common Law Court of
Record of the People of Texas, utilizing the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas facilities.” (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1, original emphasis.) Contrary to
plaintiff's belief, there is no such court known as “the Superior Common Law Court of
Record of the People of Texas” and no such court utilizes this Court’s facilities. Plaintiff
filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, and is bound by the Court’s constitutional and statutory jurisdictional
requirements and limitations.

To the extent plaintiff argues that he is entitled to pursue this lawsuit under “the

People’s jurisdiction” and “common law” jurisdiction, he is mistaken. The jurisdiction of

'“Free inhabitant” and sovereign-citizen-type arguments such as those espoused by plaintiff
are misconceptions of law commonly raised by pro se litigants. These and similar arguments have
been universally rejected by the courts. See, e.g., Watson v. Texas State Univ., 829 F. App’x 686,
686 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (denying relief on claims based on the “meritless legal theories
associated with the sovereign citizen movement”); United States v. Williams, 29 F.4th 1306, 1308
(11th Cir. 2022) (noting that courts have repeatedly rejected sovereign citizens’ “theories of
individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk”); United States v. Coleman, 871
F.3d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 2017) (describing the arguments of sovereign citizens as “meritless
rhetoric”). “These [sovereign citizen] teachings have never worked in a court of law—not a single
time.” Wirsche v. Bank of Am., N A., No. 7:13-cv-528, 2013 WL 6564657, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 13,
2013).

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5- Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 4of9

federal district courts is limited to cases or controversies that are “authorized by Article III
of the [United States] Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.”
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). Because of these limits
on federal judicial power, district courts have a duty to evaluate subject matter jurisdiction,
sua sponte, before reaching the merits of a case. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526
U.S. 574, 583 (1999).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), a plaintiff must plead ‘“‘a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” In his complaint, plaintiff
incorrectly “demands that Defendants submit to the Court proof of jurisdiction, or authority,
if any,” and that he be granted judicial relief “[i]fno proof of jurisdiction is submitted to the
Court.” (Docket Entry No. 1, (93.3, 3.4, original emphasis.) The defendants have no such
burden as to jurisdiction. Plaintiff elected to file this lawsuit in federal court and, by doing
so, undertook the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See St, Paul Reinsurance Co. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (Sth Cir. 1998) (holding that the burden of establishing
subject matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to invoke it). Ifthe party
invoking federal jurisdiction fails to establish it, the lawsuit must be dismissed. See FED.R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Ifthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the action.”’).

Citing no applicable law and pleading no factual allegations in support, plaintiff states

that he is “proceeding under diversity of citizenship.” Jd., 93.17. Diversity jurisdiction in

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5- Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 5of9

federal district court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides that the district courts
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different
states. Plaintiffs complaint seeks itemized damages in an amount of $45,860.38, and he fails
to show that he meets the statutory amount in controversy. Consequently, his complaint falls
short of establishing subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332.

Moreover, plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction as to PayPal Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff pleads no factual allegations establishing that his citizenship is diverse from that of
PayPal Holdings, Inc. To be clear, plaintiff does not allege that he is a citizen of any
particular state, which is consistent with his unilateral rejection of territorial “statism.” His
claim of being “one of the People of Texas” is not an assertion of Texas citizenship. Because
he claims no particular state citizenship and provides no facts as to an intended state
domicile, he cannot establish diversity of citizenship for purposes of § 1332. The Court gives
no credence to the Colorado address of record plaintiff provides in his complaint, as it is a
maildrop with no indicia of citizenship: “Claimant, contact INFO — Paul John Hansen, c/o -
Frank Rodrick, 14205 W 52nd Ave. Arvada, Colorado [near 80002]... .” (Docket Entry
No. 1, § 2.2, original emphasis.) Plaintiff emphasizes that this is only a “Mailing Location.”
Id., p. 8, original emphasis.

Even assuming plaintiff had properly alleged citizenship as to a particular state, he

fails to establish citizenship as to PayPal Holdings, Inc. for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 9

Plaintiff identifies PayPal Holdings, Inc. as a corporation that can be served through its
registered agent in Dallas, Texas. /d., § 2.3. This is insufficient to establish citizenship of
PayPal Holdings, Inc. under § 1332(c). Plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction
under § 1332, and his claims against PayPal Holdings, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

The Court need not address the issue of diversity jurisdiction as to defendant State of
Nebraska, as Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs claims against the
state in federal court. “Federal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state...
unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it.”
NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393-94 (Sth Cir. 2015). Plaintiff has not
pleaded any facts establishing an exception to this well-settled rule, and his claims against
the State of Nebraska are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by immunity.

Il. PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

Plaintiffstates under penalty of perjury in his application to proceed in forma pauperis
that he has no income, living expenses, or debts, and that he owns no property other than two
inoperable motor vehicles. (Docket Entry No. 2.) These assertions are inconsistent with his
complaint seeking recovery for funds removed from his PayPal account to pay back taxes.
They are also inconsistent with and refuted by his assertions on his business websites that he
maintains a “law office” at 238 South Egret Bay Blvd, #155, League City, Texas 77573; that

“At times I clear/net $15K+/month and I file [sic] no State or Federal Income Returns (1040

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 9

Form) since the year 1999”; that “My income is primarily derived from rental properties,
legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations”; and that “My income is primarily
derived from selling law related briefs with access to expanded law information topically,
and aiding people in every manner possible to do well in their legal battles. I also counsel
people across the country in living independently of the corporation called the US INC.” See

https://freeinhabitant.info/about-me (last visited on May 1, 2026);

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/ (last visited on May 1, 2026);

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?p=225 1 (last visited on May 1, 2026). Plaintiff also states in

a January 28, 2026, online blog at https://uberxo.com/2026/01/ (last visited on May 1, 2026)

that he “has years of 200K income.” When asked in federal court in October 2022 whether
he had “assets the IRS could go after if they were aggressive,” he stated in the affirmative
that he “had 28 houses and 150 acres of land. The land is worth about 1.5 million or 1.9, and
the houses vary from 150 to $35,000 [sic].” United States v. Smith, C.A. No. Case
1:21-cr-520 (N.D. Ohio) (Trial Transcript at 577.)

The Court further notes that plaintiff claimed under penalty of perjury in his
application that he owns only two motor vehicles — an inoperable 2004 Honda Element and
an inoperable 2001 Honda motorcycle. The Court takes judicial notice that plaintiff filed a
pending lawsuit in December 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, Mobile Division, Hansen v. State of Alabama, C.A. No.

1:25-cv-00493-KD-N (S.D. Ala.). In the lawsuit, plaintiff, as “one of the People of

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5 - Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 9

Alabama,” seeks damages for loss of use of his 2005 Jeep after it was stopped for failure to
display license plates and subsequently impounded in Creola, Alabama. Plaintiff failed to
disclose ownership of the Jeep in his instant application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff does not establish that he is indigent, and his application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $405.00
filing fee within TWENTY-ONE DAYS from date of this order. Plaintiff's failure to
comply timely with this order will result in dismissal of this lawsuit without further notice
for non-payment of the filing fee. Plaintiffis advised that Article 1, Section 10 of the United
States Constitution does not require him to pay the filing fee with gold or silver coin or one-
dollar federal reserve notes. Plaintiff may pay the filing fee by cash, check, certified check,
or credit card.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION.

2. Plaintiffis GRANTED leave to amend to cure his pleading deficiencies as set
forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Any curative amended complaint must be
filed within TWENTY-ONE DAYS from date of this order. The amended complaint may
not add new parties or causes of action. Should plaintiff not file a timely and properly-

pleaded amended complaint, the Court will enter a final judgment dismissing this lawsuit.

Case 4:26-cv-03422 Document5 - Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 9

3. Should plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint pursuant to this order, he
must also plead factual allegations sufficient to establish that the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, is a court of proper venue.

4. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $405.00 filing fee within TWENTY-ONE
DAYS from date of this order.

Signed at Houston, Texas, on this tne f day of May, 2026.

xD ees

KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE