NOVAK v. FIELDS

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH ALBERT NOVAK on behalf of the
natural person called Aaron Scott Drane,
)
)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB
)
KIRK FIELDS Chief Jailer of Shelby
County Jail,
)
)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND WARNING REGARDING
FILING RESTRICTION
Petitioner Joseph Albert Novak filed a habeas action on behalf of Aaron
Scott Drane pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging Mr. Drane's confinement
in the Shelby County, Indiana Jail. Dkt. 1. Because it appeared (1) that Mr.
Novak lacked standing to bring this petition, and (2) that Mr. Drane had not
exhausted his state court remedies, the Court ordered Mr. Novak to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to
exhaust state court remedies. Mr. Novak has responded to the show cause order.
Dkts. 9, 10. The Court dismisses this action for lack of jurisdiction and warns
Mr. Novak that he may be subject to filing restrictions.
I. 	Background
The 	Court 	screened 	this 	habeas 	petition 	under 	Rule 	4 	of 	the 	Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. The Court
explained that individuals may file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus as a "next
friend" in limited circumstances. Dkt. 7 at 2-3 (citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495
Case 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
U.S. 149 (1990)). Namely, the individual must show that the real party in interest
cannot appear on his own behalf due to inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or
another disability, and he must be dedicated to the best interest of the person
on whose behalf he is trying to litigate. Id. at 2-3 (citing Whitmore, 495 U.S. at
164). The Court took judicial notice of the case summary in Indiana case number
73D02-2503-F6-000054, which reflected that Mr. Drane's competency had never
been at issue in those state court proceedings. Thus, the Court ordered Mr.
Novak to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Court ordered him to show cause why this
action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
court remedies.
II. 	Response to Show Cause Order
In response to the Court's order, Mr. Novak filed a "conditional notice,
demand for rebuttal, and challenge to article III authority," which was docketed
as a motion. Dkt. 9. Mr. Novak stated that he "demand[ed] this honorable court
answer the following questions of law, conscience, and constitutional duty within
ten (10) days of receipt" and that failure to respond would "constitute tacit
acquiescence, estoppel, and dishonor." Dkt. 9 at 1. He proceeded to state that
the Court was protecting "the artificial entity known as State of Indiana, while
denying 	relief 	to 	living 	souls." 	Id. 	He 	posited 	that 	he 	was 	sovereign, 	the
government was subordinate, and that this Court would have to prove that it
had jurisdiction over him. Id. at 2. Mr. Novak then filed a "notice of dishonor and
default by tacit acquiescence" on September 22, 2025. Dkt. 10.
Case 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Instead of attempting to explain how he could proceed as a next friend in
this habeas action, Mr. Novak has presented frivolous sovereign-citizen-like
claims. The Seventh Circuit has directed lower courts to summarily reject filings
pressing such arguments. McCauley-Bey v. Meuris, 2022 WL 10555560, at *1
(7th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022) ("[A]rguments that a defendant is sovereign and beyond
the jurisdiction of the courts should be summarily rejected, however they are
presented.") (cleaned up); Jon Jones Bey v. Indiana, 847 F.3d 559, 559–60 (7th
Cir. 2017) ("We have repeatedly rejected [sovereign-citizen-like] claims."); United
States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) ("We have repeatedly rejected
[] theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.").
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because
Mr. Novak has not shown that he has standing to present any claims in a habeas
action on Mr. Drane's behalf. The dismissal of this action has no impact on Mr.
Drane's ability to file a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
if he chooses to do so after exhausting state court remedies. Indeed, nothing that
has been filed in this case indicates that Mr. Drane has requested Mr. Novak to
act on his behalf.
Additionally, the Court warns Mr. Novak that if he persists in filing
frivolous sovereign-citizen-like filings in this Court, he may be subjected to
sanctions, including a filing restriction. The Court has a duty to deter frivolous
filings. "Every paper filed . . . no matter how repetitious or frivolous, requires
some 	portion 	of 	the 	institution's 	limited 	resources. 	A 	part 	of 	the 	Court's
responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes
Case 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
the interests of justice." Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)). Frivolous filing behavior
cannot be tolerated, and "the judicial authority to curb it is ample." Support Sys.
Int'l v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases); see also Fuery
v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 2018) ("District courts 'possess
certain inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. That
authority includes the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct
which abuses the judicial process.'") (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186, (2017) (internal citations omitted)).
III. 	Conclusion
In summary, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Mr.
Novak lacks standing to bring a habeas petition as a next friend on Aaron Drane's
behalf. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment and to terminate the
motion at docket [9].
The Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Drane is housed at Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility. The clerk is directed to send courtesy copies of the
following docket entries to Mr. Drane: docket 1, petition for writ of habeas
corpus; docket 7, order to show cause; and this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/10/2025
Case 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Distribution:
JOSEPH ALBERT NOVAK
7334 N. 200 E.
La Porte, IN 46350
Courtesy Copy to:
Aaron S. Drane
IDOC # 296190
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S Old US Highway 41
Carlisle, IN 47838
Case 1:25-cv-00789-JPH-KMB Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>