Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman v. Lana Wilson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 28, 2023*
Decided November 30, 2023
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1962
SOVEREIGNTY JOESEPH
HELMUELLER SOVEREIGN
FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LANA WILSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-0297-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman, a state prisoner in
Wisconsin, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional
rights by opening his legal mail outside of his presence. At screening, the district court
dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, and we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 23-1962 Page 2
Helmueller, who previously went by the name Andrew Jacob Helmueller, alleges
unnamed officials at Waupun Correctional Institution opened four pieces of what he
calls “legal mail” addressed to him. One mailing contained a summons from the St.
Croix County District Attorney, and the other three were from attorneys at Crivello
Carlson, S.C., the law firm representing the defendants in another lawsuit Helmueller
had filed. These mailings consisted of court filings, including a motion for summary
judgment that required a timely response. The four pieces of mail, each stamped with
“Exempt Correspondence Open in Presence of Inmate,” were opened outside of
Helmueller’s presence and then placed in the door of his prison cell. Helmueller sought
$1,000 in damages for each piece of opened mail, in addition to punitive damages.
After allowing Helmueller an opportunity to cure deficiencies in his initial
complaint, the district court reviewed the amended complaint and dismissed it for
failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Understanding Helmueller to allege a
violation of his constitutional right to access the courts in connection with the opened
mail—among several other claims—the district court concluded that Helmueller did not
state a claim. The court explained that the mail in question would not give insight into
any litigation strategy, and Helmueller did not identify any legal claim that was lost
because of the defendants’ conduct; thus, he suffered no constitutional harm. The
district court dismissed the amended complaint, ordered the entry of final judgment,
and noted that Helmueller incurred a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
On appeal, Helmueller challenges only the district court’s ruling that he failed to
state a claim against the prison officials for violating his constitutional right to access
the courts. He therefore waives arguments about his other claims. Hackett v. City of
South Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 510 (7th Cir. 2020). We review the dismissal at screening de
novo. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015).
Helmueller’s primary argument on appeal urges us to adopt an approach to his
claim that we have already rejected. Relying on decisions of other circuit courts,
Helmueller argues that the district court should not have distinguished between legal
mail from a prisoner’s lawyer and public or nonconfidential documents of a legal
nature. Compare, e.g., Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 876–77 (6th Cir. 2003), with Guajardo-
Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 804 (7th Cir. 2010).
We see no reason to depart from our existing approach. The right of access to the
courts, which can be grounded in multiple constitutional provisions, see Christopher v.
Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002), includes the right to keep “legal” mail private.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 23-1962 Page 3
Guajardo-Palma, 622 F.3d at 802–03. Given the importance of confidential
communication between lawyer and client in formulating litigation strategy, destroying
that confidentiality infringes the right of access to the courts. See id. Yet prisons need not
trust every envelope labeled “legal mail” and must be permitted to verify the nature of
the communication. Id. at 803–04. To accommodate both interests, we have explained
that a prisoner should be allowed to be present when the legal mail is opened. Id. at 804.
This rule, however, applies only to correspondence from a lawyer in pending or
impending litigation or from a court about a non-public matter. Id. at 804.
Here, none of the mail that the officers opened outside of Helmueller’s presence
contained information that could give them an edge in litigation (if, indeed, Helmueller
has any other pending litigation against the prison). See id. at 806. Public documents and
“routine and nonsensitive” documents do not implicate the right of access because
reading them would not give prison officials insights into a prisoner’s legal strategy or
interfere with confidentiality. Id. at 804–806. (Indeed, Helmueller could not have any
“confidential” communication from opposing counsel.) Here, the summons and the court
documents sent by opposing counsel were filed on public dockets. See Bond v. Utreras,
585 F.3d 1061, 1073 (7th Cir. 2009). Opening them outside Helmueller’s presence—
indeed, reading them—could not violate his right to access the courts. Guajardo-Palma,
622 F.3d at 806.
Nevertheless, Helmueller argues that the district court should have adopted the
principle that mail from a court cannot be opened outside the presence of a prisoner
who has specifically requested otherwise, even if the mail may consist only of public
documents. Sallier, 343 F.3d at 877. But we have previously considered and rejected this
argument, see Guajardo-Palma, 622 F.3d at 804, and the district court correctly applied
our precedent in dismissing Helmueller’s claim.
Further, Helmueller does not allege that the defendants hindered him in his
pursuit of any legal matter, which he must do to state a claim of denial of access to the
courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996); In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 660–61 (7th Cir.
2012) (collecting cases). Helmueller does not articulate any connection between the
opening of his mail and his inability to pursue a legal claim, nor does he assert that the
defendants’ practice intimidated him from litigating. Guajardo-Palma, 622 F.3d at 806.
Before concluding, we observe that Helmueller should not have been permitted
to litigate this appeal in forma pauperis. A district court concluded, on July 23, 2023, that
Helmueller struck out under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Freeman v. Kastens, No.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 23-1962 Page 4
23-CV-493-JDP, 2023 WL 4824772, at *1 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2023). He brought that case
as “Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman.” The strikes the court listed in that case
were incurred before the notice of appeal in this case and appear valid. Because we
learned of this after briefing was complete, we exercise our discretion to review the
merits of the district court’s decision. Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 520 (7th Cir. 2017). But
we revoke his in forma pauperis status; he must pay the filing and docket fees for this
appeal. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000). And because litigating
under different names allowed the plaintiff to escape a timely tally of his strikes, we
make the following record:
Including the appealed order and this appeal, the appellant, Wisconsin prisoner
# 607689 (under the surname Helmueller or Freeman) has, on three or more prior
occasions, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed because it is frivolous or fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Helmueller v. Officers, Judges,
and/or Responsible Officials, 22-cv-41-bbc, (W.D. Wis. July 1, 2022); Helmueller v. Hallett,
22-cv-463-jdp (W.D. Wis. Oct. 25, 2022); Helmueller v. Wilson, No. 23-cv-297, 2023 WL
3322332, at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 9, 2023); Freeman v. Kastens, No. 23-CV-373-JDP, 2023 WL
4131534, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 22, 2023). Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he cannot
proceed in forma pauperis in any action under the PLRA unless his allegations show
that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
AFFIRMED; IFP STATUS REVOKED

-- 4 of 4 --