Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey v. Simon et al

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is frivolous and malicious. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 7/25/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:17-CV-294 JVB Philip P. Simon, Rudy Lozano, and David A. Capp, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Haneef Shakeel Jackson-Bey, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint attempting to sue two federal district court judges and the United States Attorney based on their involvement with his criminal case, United States v. Jackson-Bey, 2:09-CR-43-004 (N.D. Ind. filed March 5, 2009), where he pleaded guilty to Sex Trafficking and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. (ECF 1-2 at 7 and 18--19.) Jackson-Bey claims that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is not a citizen of the United States. (ECF 1-2 at 11--14.) Regardless of an individual’s claimed status of descent, be it as a “sovereign citizen,” a “secured-party creditor,” or a “flesh-and-blood human being,” that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011). Moreover, these defendants are immune from claims arising from their involvement with Jackson-Bey’s criminal case. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978). For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it is frivolous and malicious. SO ORDERED on July 25, 2017. s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?