
    Edward Barreiro TREVINO, In Propria Persona, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of FLORIDA, 2 Courthouse Square #2000, Kissimmee, FL 34741, d.b.a. Leslie A. Hess, Defendant-Appelllee.
    No. 16-15389 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (May 4, 2017)
    Edward Barreiro Trevino, Pro Se
    Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Criminal Division, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee
    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)(l) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. After review, we affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

Trevino’s legal arguments, including that Florida has no jurisdiction over him because he is a “natural born, free ... [Hiving, 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 théories 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 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, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). If Trevino seeks to challenge his conviction, ha-beas corpus, and not § 1983, is the proper avenue. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 81, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (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. 
      
      . We review for abuse of discretion a district court's sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), mindful of the fact that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
     