Khonsu El v. Indiana State of, 1:23-cv-00488

Selah Khonsu El (also known as Lamar James Wilson, Sr.), a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985 with related requests for mandamus and prohibition.
Plaintiff alleges trust property was illegally seized and challenges the validity of his arrest and continued incarceration, claiming violation of sovereign immunity and asserting a separate legal identity detached from his state-recognized name.
Plaintiff's arguments appear rooted in sovereign citizen ideology, referencing foreign sovereignty, international entities, and various treaties.
He seeks immediate release from prison, the return and sealing of information linked to his state name, an injunction against state interference, and monetary damages.
The court reviewed the case under the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which mandates dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief against immune defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to Immediate Release	Arrest and detention violate FSIA/sovereign rights	Not directly addressed; subject to review	Habeas corpus is exclusive remedy for this claim
Monetary Damages for Property Loss	Seizure of trust property violated sovereign rights	Not directly addressed	Claims are legally frivolous
Validity of Sovereign Immunity	Plaintiff immune as "sovereign citizen"	Not directly addressed	Sovereign citizen claims are frivolous
Injunctive Relief Against State	Seeks order stopping state interference	Not directly addressed	Dismissed as frivolous

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for challenging confinement)
Jones-Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559 (sovereign citizen theories are legally frivolous)
United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (sovereign citizen arguments universally rejected by courts)