Formanack, Michaelene v. Rios, Rosie

Filing 15

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Orders, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re 13 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Order, # 2 Judgment, # 3 Order, # 4 Docket Sheet) (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MICHAELENE JO FORMANACK,
Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER

v.
14-cv-859-jdp
ROSIE RIOS,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Michaelene Jo Formanack, a resident of Elmwood, Wisconsin, has initiated this
lawsuit with a document titled “Bill in Equity,” naming Treasurer of the United States Rosie
Rios as the defendant. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has paid the filing fee. She
alleges that when her birth certificate was registered with the State of Wisconsin in 1955, she
“was wedded with the defacto corporate name MICHAELENE J. FLORIAN. At that time [she]
became surety for the state of Wisconsin.”1 She states that this “defacto name” was “saddled
with taxes of every sort,” and that because “the bottom half of her birth certificate was not left
on,” she became “a ward of the state.” She states further that the government committed fraud
when it did not disclose to her that her Social Security number “was actually the number of a
bond insured by a German social insurance company.”
Plaintiff asks for several remedies, including that the court “release the complainant and
her family from being trustees and sureties to our defacto corporate names” and exempt her
from transportation-related regulations such as driver licenses, license plate laws, and
Transportation Security Administration screening, that her “birth status be restored to that of
Private Citizen of the United States with all the Constitutional rights that go with that status,”

1

Florian is plaintiff’s maiden name.

and that “all monies taken by the State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin for both
properties we owned, for property taxes, be returned to us.”
Although plaintiff has paid the full filing fee for this action and the complaint does not
have to be screened under the in forma pauperis statue, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has the
inherent authority to screen and dismiss the case sua sponte. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490
U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (in forma pauperis statute “authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or
malicious’ action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of
this statutory provision.”); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) (“district courts
have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike,
regardless of fee status.”).
Even construing plaintiff’s pro se pleading generously, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
521 (1972), I must dismiss the case as frivolous. Her complaint is grounded in long-discredited
“sovereign citizen” theories of federal, state, and local government illegitimacy that cannot
support any viable claims. See, e.g., United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993)
(argument that individual is sovereign citizen of state who is not subject to jurisdiction of
United States and not subject to federal taxing authority is “shopworn” and frivolous); Bechard
v. Rios, No. 14-CV-867-WMC, 2014 WL 7366226, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 24, 2014) (case
dismissed where plaintiff “maintain[ed] that the social security number that issued along with
his birth certificate . . . is really an identification number for a German-owned insurance
policy.”).
This case has been proceeding under seal because plaintiff’s complaint includes a cover
sheet

stating

“EXTRAORDINARY,

SPECIAL

and

PRIVATE,

RESTRICTED

and

CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY and PRIVILEDGED.” Dkt. 1, at 1. However, plaintiff has
presented the court with no reason to keep the entire document under seal, much less the “good

2

cause” necessary to override the presumption that court documents are made public. See County
Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
omitted) (“The public’s interest can be overridden only if the . . . [privacy] interests
predominate in the particular case, that is, only if there is good cause for sealing a part or the
whole of the record in that case.”). I will direct the clerk of court to double-check the record and
redact any confidential information protected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2
(“Privacy Protection For Filings Made with the Court”). Assuming that the clerk finds no
unredacted confidential information, such as a person’s social security number, the record of
this case will be promptly unsealed.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. All pending motions are
DENIED as moot.
2. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment for defendants and close this case.
3. The clerk of court is directed to unseal the docket for this case and all individual
docket entries, after double-checking the record to redact any confidential
information protected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Entered July 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3