United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge.
plaintiff, Kevin Michael Boon-Bey (“Boon-Bey”),
filed a complaint against Defendants Michael Hanrahan, a
Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge
(“Hanrahan”), and Matthew Torbenson
(“Torbenson”), a Milwaukee County prosecutor,
alleging there are jurisdictional defects in a state criminal
case in which he is the defendant and asking this Court to
step in and stop it. (Docket #1); see also State of
Wisconsin v. Kevin Michael Boon, Case No. 2018CF5908
(Milwaukee County Circuit Court). Hanrahan is the presiding
judge in that case and Torbenson is the prosecutor.
state criminal action was tried to a jury between July 23 and
July 30, 2019. The jury returned a verdict on July 31, 2019,
finding Boon-Bey guilty, as a party to a crime, of: (1)
causing mental harm to a child, (2) chronic neglect of a
child, consequence is emotional damage, and (3) false
imprisonment. On September 6, 2019, Boon-Bey was sentenced to
a total term of eleven years, with six years’ initial
confinement and five years’ extended supervision.
case, Boon-Bey alleges that the state court does not have
jurisdiction over the criminal case against him because he is
a tribal member of the Choctaw Musgokee Yamassee Nation.
(Docket #1 at 3). He alleges that his “entanglements
with the state courts of Wisconsin originate from untrue
claims made by his medically diagnosed troubled teenage
daughter, a minor child, ” and because the daughter is
eligible for tribal membership, his criminal case must be
addressed by the tribal court under the Indian Child Welfare
Act (“ICWA”). Id. at 4; see
also 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et
seq. He asks that this Court stop the
prosecution of the state criminal case in Milwaukee County
and transfer it to the Choctaw Musgokee Yamassee Nation
Tribal Court. Id. at 5–6. In addition, he
seeks the return of “all property” and a
“payment yet to be determined by federal
statute.” Id. at 16.
supplement to his complaint, Boon-Bey alleges that he was
convicted and taken into custody by the Milwaukee County
Sheriff in violation of Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. (Docket #4 at 1). He asks “as a
victim in the lower court” that this Court void the
judgment of the state court (pursuant to federal Rule 60), to
release him from detention until this federal case is
decided, and to stay both the state criminal court case and a
related state juvenile proceeding. Id. at 2.
August 16, 2019, Hanrahan and Torbenson moved to dismiss this
action on the grounds of abstention, Eleventh Amendment
immunity, judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity,
qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. (Docket #6).
August 30, 2019, Boon-Bey filed a document he titled
“Judicial Notice.” (Docket #10). It does not
respond in any way to the arguments the defendants made in
support of their motion to dismiss. Instead, it identifies
a living Man, ‘within’ and of the House of
El’s, Bey’s and Ali’s with dominion over
the land/soil (Amexem/America), a nonresident Alien to the
Corporate United States, an Indigenous Choctaw/Washitaw
Muur/Moor (Moorish American National), an Asiatic Man of the
Asiatic Race, an original Natural Physical Man, a Creation of
the Almighty God’s (Allah), Under the Almighty
God’s (Elohim/Allah) Authority and subject only to his
Id. at 1. Boon-Bey’s filing also includes
copies of various documents filed in Milwaukee County Circuit
Court that he titled “Affidavit of Status, ” each
repeating the same nonsensical text recounted above. (Docket
Court will not engage with Boon-Bey’s gibberish.
Nothing in his filing gives the Court a reason to disagree
with the arguments made and authorities cited by the
defendants in support of their motion to dismiss. Because the
defendants’ motion is essentially unopposed, and
because the Court agrees with each ground for dismissal
stated in their motion (including failure to state a claim),
the Court will grant the defendants’ motion. Finally,
because allowing Boon-Bey to amend his complaint- something
for which he did not ask-would be futile, the Court will
dismiss this case in its entirety.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’
motion to dismiss (Docket #6) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Clerk of the Court is directed to ...