Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman v. Kris Anderson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 21, 2023*
Decided November 22, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1609
SOVEREIGNTY JOESEPH HELMUELLER
SOVEREIGN FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KRIS ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 21-cv-665-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Dismissal of a lawsuit, although a severe sanction, is sometimes warranted. The
district court properly dismissed this suit filed by Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller
Sovereign Freeman as a sanction for sending death threats to the court. We thus affirm.
* We have agreed to decide this appeal 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1609 Page 2
In this case, Helmueller sued officers and medical providers under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He alleges that, while he was a pre-trial detainee at St. Croix County Jail in
Wisconsin, officers attacked him, broke his shoulder, and ignored his requests for
medical treatment. Helmueller was later transported to a medical center where, he
continues, staff ignored his request to treat his shoulder injury; instead they restrained
and medicated him without his consent.
The lawsuit did not last long. After an assistant attorney general filed a notice of
appearance on behalf of the officers, Helmueller objected to the attorney’s involvement
in the case. In doing so, he threatened the judge and the President in writing:
Plaintiff demands the court show cause for Defendants representation by
the WI Atty General and or the WI Dept of Justice. The Defendants have no
right to be represented by the WI Attorney General or the WI Dept of Justice
in this matter. Cut your backwards ass bullshit or you will start losing
family members and the President of the United States will wind up dead!
Stop playing games I demand justice not tyranny. Sec 1983 says “shall be
liable” stop protecting those who violated the law and my rights.
The officers then moved to dismiss the case as a sanction for Helmueller’s threats.
Helmueller responded that he did not intend to threaten any public official. The court
disagreed, finding that Helmueller’s statements were threatening and impermissible. It
also ruled that dismissal was the appropriate sanction to punish Helmueller’s behavior
and to deter similar misconduct in his other pending lawsuits.
A district court has “inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings and to
regulate the conduct of those appearing before it, and pursuant to that authority may
impose appropriate sanctions to penalize and discourage misconduct.” Ramirez v. T&H
Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2016). In appropriate circumstances, this
authority empowers the district court to dismiss a case with prejudice. See Secrease v. W.
& S. Life Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 397, 402 (7th Cir. 2015). We have thus affirmed dismissals as a
sanction for threatening violence or other insubordination that disables the judiciary
from functioning. See Castillo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 938 F.2d 776, 779–81 (7th
Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff’s counsel threatened violence against
opposing counsel); see also Donelson v. Hardy, 931 F.3d 565, 569–70 (7th Cir. 2019)
(affirming dismissal based on plaintiff's willful disobedience of discovery rules);
Secrease, 800 F.3d at 402 (affirming dismissal based on plaintiff’s falsification of

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 23-1609 Page 3
evidence). In reviewing sanctions, we assess a court’s factual findings for clear error and
its choice of sanction for abuse of discretion. Secrease, 800 F.3d at 401.
On appeal, Helmueller first argues that the district court wrongly found that he
threatened anyone. But that finding—based on Helmueller’s own written
statement—was not clearly erroneous. Indeed, it is hard to see his statement, “Cut your
backwards ass bull shit or you will start losing family members and the President of the
United States will wind up dead,” as anything other than a threat of murder.
Next, Helmueller maintains that the district court abused its discretion by
choosing dismissal rather than some lesser sanction. But a lesser sanction was neither
needed nor feasible. As the district court explained, Helmueller did not need a warning
to know not to threaten murder or that doing so could impede the judiciary.
Additionally, Helmueller would be undeterred by a financial penalty: He began the suit
asking for (and receiving) leave to sue in forma pauperis because, he assured the court,
he is impoverished; thus he is impervious to fines. Dismissal was therefore a proper
sanction. See Secrease, 800 F.3d at 402.
Finally, Helmueller argues that the district court abused its discretion because
the First Amendment protected his statements. But the First Amendment does not
shield from criminal sanctions threats of murder. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705,
707 (1969). And even speech that may not be criminalized is subject to the lesser
opprobrium of a judicial sanction when it occurs during and threatens to derail
litigation, as here. See BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 537 (2002).
We end with an application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Under that Act,
Helmueller is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis if he has on three or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained, brought an action or appeal that was
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state claim upon which relief may be
granted (unless, as is not asserted here, he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A district court ruled on July 27, 2023, that Helmueller (who
also uses the name Freeman) has three or more such “strikes” under the Act. See
Freeman v. Kastens, No. 23-CV-493-JDP, 2023 WL 4824772, at *1 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2023).
Consequently, Helmueller is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis no matter how
he chooses to present his name.
This brings us to the issue of sanctions. Not counting his dismissal in this case,
Helmueller incurred at least two of his strikes before seeking leave from the district

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 23-1609 Page 4
court, on May 1, 2023, to appeal this case in forma pauperis. 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). But it appears that, when
seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis, Helmueller kept the district court in the dark
about these strikes and evident disqualification for pauper status. We therefore ORDER
Helmueller to show cause within 14 days why we should not sanction him for failing to
disclose to the district court his previously incurred strikes. Failure to pay any monetary
fine that we may impose as a sanction will subject Helmueller to an order barring him
from filing papers in this circuit as set forth in Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack,
45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --