Bastil v. Williams El
Filing
2
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/29/2018 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Torrance Leon Williams El)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TORRANCE LEON WILLIAMS EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SHEBOYGAN,
SHEBOYGAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, OFFICER ANNA
TAYLOR, SGT. SCOTT REINEKE,
and CHRISTOPHER D.
DOMAGALSKI,
Case No. 18-CV-293-JPS-JPS
ORDER
Defendants.
TORRANCE LEON WILLIAMS EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY
COURTHOUSE and UNKNOWN
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY
COURTHOUSE REPRESENTATIVES,
Case No. 18-CV-328-JPS-JPS
ORDER
Defendants.
TORRANCE LEON WILLIAMS EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
REGINA CALLOWAY and
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT AGENCY,
Defendants.
Case No. 18-CV-602-JPS-JPS
ORDER
SAMANTHA BASTIL, SHEBOYGAN
COUNTY COURTHOUSE,
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY IV-D
AGENCY, and REGINA
CALLOWAY,
Case No. 18-CV-603-JPS-JPS
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
TORRANCE LEON WILLIAMS EL,
Defendant.
Torrance Leon Williams El (“Williams El”) filed four civil actions in
this Court from February to April 2018. His filings in each of the cases
border on being incomprehensible, but the Court has done its best to make
sense of them. The first two were filed near in time in late February and
early March 2018, and they seem to concern a traffic ticket Williams El
received in Sheboygan. Case No. 18-CV-293, (Docket #1); Case No. 18-CV328, (Docket #1). The other two cases were both filed on April 17, 2018, and
they concern an adjudication of Williams El’s parental rights and child
support obligations in Sheboygan County Circuit Court. Case No. 18-CV602, (Docket #1); Case No. 18-CV-603, (Docket #1).
Below, the Court addresses the first two cases together, and then the
second two cases together.
1.
TRAFFIC TICKET CASES
In both of these cases, Williams El has sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee, the Court
must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it raises claims that are
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
Page 2 of 9
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hutchinson ex rel.
Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 900 (7th Cir. 1997). The court may, therefore,
dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327. “Malicious,” although sometimes treated as a synonym for
“frivolous,” “is more usefully construed as intended to harass.” Lindell v.
McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1109–10 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
To state a cognizable claim under the federal notice pleading system,
the plaintiff is required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [he] is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It is not
necessary for the plaintiff to plead specific facts and his statement need only
“give the defendant fair notice of what the…claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, a complaint that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). To state a claim, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, “that is plausible on its face.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The complaint allegations “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(citation omitted).
In considering whether a complaint states a claim, courts should
follow the principles set forth in Twombly by first, “identifying pleadings
Page 3 of 9
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Legal conclusions must be
supported by factual allegations. Id. If there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, the court must, second, “assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that: 1) he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States; and 2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a
person or persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore v. County
of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Kramer v. Vill. of N. Fond
du Lac, 384 F.3d 856, 861 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S.
635, 640 (1980). The court is obliged to give the plaintiff’s pro se allegations,
“however inartfully pleaded,” a liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
In the first case, Williams El sues various defendants for issuing him
a citation for operating a motor vehicle without a valid license or
registration. Case No. 18-CV-293, (Docket #1 at 2–3). This occurred in
January 2018. He says this was wrong because he is “a sovereign man” who
“did not fall under [their] jurisdiction.” Id. His complaint incoherently
discusses financing statements, the Uniform Commercial Code, and a treaty
with the “Morroccon Empire.” Id. His vehicle was impounded and the
defendants would not return it to him; it appears they were unmoved by
his claim that he was outside of their jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Williams El
demands twelve million dollars and seeks recognition “as the indigenous
man that I am.” Id. at 4.
The second case appears to be an extension of the first. Williams El
appeared in the Sheboygan County Courthouse on February 26, 2018. Case
No. 18-CV-328, (Docket #1 at 2). He does not say why, but a review of
Page 4 of 9
Wisconsin’s publicly available court docket reveals that he was criminally
prosecuted for the above-mentioned citation; it was his third such citation
within three years. See State of Wisconsin v. Torrance L. Williams, Sheboygan
County
Circuit
Court,
Case
No.
2018-CT-67,
available
at:
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/. Williams El says that he tried to interrupt court
proceedings to discuss his “estate” and being a “debtor,” but was not
allowed to do so. Case No. 18-CV-328, (Docket #1 at 2–3). Eventually his
case was taken up, and Williams El offered similar ramblings about
financing statements, his “estate,” copyright violations, and the alleged lack
of jurisdiction. Id. at 3. He was ordered to appear at a later hearing. Id. It is
not clear what happened afterward; Williams El does not describe it well,
and the public docket ends on February 26. In this case, Williams El requests
five-hundred and nine million dollars, as well as being recognized as an
“indigenous” person. Id. at 4.
Both cases are frivolous. Williams El’s primary assertion in each is
that the Sheboygan County executive and judicial branches of government
lack jurisdiction over him because he is a “sovereign” or “indigenous”
person. This theory of avoiding governmental oversight of one’s life,
known as the “sovereign citizen” movement, is not unique to him:
As explained by the FBI, “Sovereign citizens view the
USG [U.S. government] as bankrupt and without tangible
assets; therefore, the USG is believed to use citizens to back
U.S. currency. Sovereign citizens believe the USG operates
solely on a credit system using American citizens as collateral.
Sovereign citizens exploit this belief by filing fraudulent
financial documents charging their debt to the Treasury
Department.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign
Citizens: An Introduction for Law Enforcement” 3 (Nov.
2010),
http://info.public
intelligence.net/FBISovereignCitizens.pdf (visited March 6, 2013).
Page 5 of 9
El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 710 F.3d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 2013). Sovereign
citizens like Williams El often file UCC financing statements for themselves
as a person, believing that this grants them immunity from the jurisdiction
of government authorities. Gravatt v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 279, 282–83
(Ct. Fed. Cl. 2011). Those sovereign citizens of African descent often hold
an additional belief that they are descendants of the Moors of North Africa,
and are part of the Moorish or Moroccan Empire (which does not exist),
thus further insulating them from the United States’ jurisdiction. Bey v. State
of Ind., 847 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2017).
This belief, sincerely held or not, is not a valid basis for avoiding state
or federal jurisdiction. Charlotte v. Hansen, 433 F. App’x 660, 661 (10th Cir.
2011) (in addressing a sovereign citizen’s civil suit filed against a county
judge regarding a traffic violation, the court noted that “an individual’s
belief that her status as a ‘sovereign citizen’ puts her beyond the jurisdiction
of the courts ‘has no conceivable validity in American law.’” (quoting
United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990)). Williams El
admits that he was in Sheboygan when he was cited, thus placing himself
under the jurisdiction of its police department and courts. His nonsensical
references to financial documents, estates, and the Moroccan Empire cannot
change that fact. Further, the other purported claims presented in each case,
such as copyright violations, violations of “sovereignty,” violations of
constitutional rights, violations of the “rights of indigenous peoples,” and
violation of the “Treaty with Morocco” are all founded on these same
ridiculous principles. They are similarly frivolous. Because neither case
presents a non-frivolous claim for relief, both will be dismissed with
prejudice.
Page 6 of 9
2.
PATERNITY CASES
The second set of cases Williams El has filed with this Court concerns
a paternity dispute. The first action in this set alleges that Regina Calloway
(“Calloway”), with whom Williams El apparently has a child, filed a
petition to obligate Williams El to pay child support. Case No. 18-CV-602,
(Docket #1). He explains that there was some confusion about a court date
in that case, and it seems that a judgment for child support may have been
entered by default. Id. There is also some indication that the circuit court
did not have jurisdiction over the child support issue. Id. Williams El asks
that his child be returned to him, that the child support petition be
dismissed, and that he be paid four billion dollars in damages. Id. As with
the first two cases described above, Williams El has asked for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this case.
The last action was initiated with a document styled a “notice of
removal.” Case No. 18-CV-603, (Docket #1). It appears that Williams El
wants to remove the child support action from Sheboygan County Circuit
Court to this Court. Id. By reference to the earlier-filed action, the Court
gleans that Samantha Bastil is an attorney for the Sheboygan County “IV-D
Agency,” as Williams El calls it. The “notice” is not signed by Williams El
and he has for some reason redacted his address and other contact
information. Id.
To be sure, there are a host of problems with these cases. First, these
cases do not appear to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. A
federal court is always required to police its own jurisdiction, regardless of
the stage of the case or whether it is questioned by the parties. Wernsing v.
Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 742–43 (7th Cir. 2005); Tylon v. Kloak, 98 F. App’x
511, 512 (7th Cir. 2004). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and
may only hear cases in two primary categories: 1) those raising issues of
Page 7 of 9
federal law, known as “federal question” jurisdiction, and 2) those between
parties who are citizens of different states and which involve an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000.00, known as “diversity” jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a).
Federal question jurisdiction is not present here because family law
matters such as parental rights and child support are solely matters of state
law, not federal law. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 625 (1987) (quoting In re
Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593–94 (1890)) (“[T]he whole subject of the domestic
relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the
States and not to the laws of the United States.”); see also Elk Grove Unified
Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 13 (2004). Diversity jurisdiction also appears
to be lacking. Williams El identifies himself as a citizen of Wisconsin, and it
appears that the other parties are as well, though the papers filed by
Williams El do not make that absolutely clear.
Even if these cases did invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction,
which is doubtful, they warrant dismissal with prejudice anyway. Like the
cases described above, these cases are also clearly frivolous. In support of
his assertion that there was a problem with the child support action in
Sheboygan County Circuit Court, Williams El again advances his sovereign
citizen arguments. Case No. 18-CV-602, (Docket #1 at 2–3). He says he is
entitled to “reclaim” his “human offspring” because his “status” and his
“human offspring status” were not “subject to [that court’s] jurisdiction.”
Id. at 2, 3. As explained above, suits based on these allegations are frivolous.
Because neither case presents a non-frivolous claim for relief, both will be
dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Case Nos. 18-CV-293, 18-CV-328, 18-CV-602
and 18-CV-603 be and the same are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Page 8 of 9
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 29th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 9 of 9
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?