United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge
se plaintiff Scot Alan Perket has filed 13 lawsuits
since May 2016, alleging a variety of wrongs against
numerous, various defendants. Several of these cases have
since been terminated for failure to pay the filing
In other cases, Perket paid the full filing fee, and the
court issued summons for him to serve on the defendants in
accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In each of those cases, Perket has attempted
service, and the defendants have filed motions to dismiss on
various grounds, including lack of personal and subject
matter jurisdiction. Those motions to dismiss are addressed in
a separate order issued today.
respect to the five cases listed in the caption above,
however, the court conducted an initial review to determine
whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. See
Buchel-Ruegsegger v. Buchel, 576 F.3d 451, 453 (7th Cir.
2009) (noting that federal courts have a duty to evaluate
their own jurisdiction, “sua sponte if
necessary”) (citation omitted). The court also reviewed
the complaints for any claims that are obviously frivolous,
malicious or devoid of merit. See Rowe v. Shake, 196
F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[D]istrict courts have
the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants,
prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee
status.”); Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536
(1974) (district court may dismiss fee-paid complaint if
claims are “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be
absolutely devoid of merit”) (citation omitted). In
doing so here, the court is mindful that Perket is held to a
“less stringent standard” in crafting pleadings
as a pro se litigant. Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even under a relaxed pleading standard,
however, this court plainly lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over any of Perket's claims in the above captioned cases.
Accordingly, all five cases will be dismissed.
federal district court's jurisdiction is limited, meaning
that generally it may only hear a case if Congress has
authorized it. With limited exceptions inapplicable here, a
federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a case in one of
two situations: (1) the plaintiff brings a claim that arises
under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) the
plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states and
the amount in controversy is greater than $75, 000. 28 U.S.C.
Case No. 16-cv-396
case number 16-cv-396, Perket brings claims against Mayo
Health Care, St. Francis Hospital, and the Buffalo County
Court, arising from separate incidents that occurred in 1998,
2015 and 2016. With respect to the 1998 incident, Perket
alleges that he was taken to St. Francis Hospital, which is
part of Mayo Health Care in La Crosse, by La Crosse County
police. There, a nurse extracted fluid from his thigh. The
nurse would not tell him the purpose of the extractions, and
he was forced to sign a paper he did not understand.
2015, Perket claims he was arrested for disorderly conduct in
the town of Alma, and his blood was drawn at Mayo Health Care
in Eau Claire. He also alleges that he was tried twice for
the same offense and was not assigned a public defender or
given a phone call.
Perket alleges that in 2016, he was driving with his social
worker to an appointment in Alma, but arrived late due to bad
conditions and road construction. He claims that he was sent
to St. Francis because he was late, and he was concerned that
hospital staff would draw fluids as they had done 1998.
Perket's claims against the Buffalo County Court for
Double Jeopardy and denial of counsel are pleaded as federal
claims arising under the United States Constitution, these
challenges to the fairness of his past, state criminal
proceedings are barred outright by the rule articulated in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Heck prohibits a plaintiff from bringing claims for
damages if judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
“necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence.” Id. Thus, Perket cannot challenge
the validity of Buffalo County conviction through a federal
lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless that
conviction has already been “reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called
into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.” Id. at 486-87. Because Perket
has made no such showing, any claims challenging one of his
state court conviction are barred.
contrast, Perket's allegations against Mayo Health Care
and St. Francis do not even state a claim over which this
court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction, to the extent
they plead a claim at all. Although the legal basis for his
claims is not well articulated, his claims against Mayo
Health Care and St. Francis appear to be based on theories of
state law medical malpractice. Indeed, Perket's complaint
indicates that he intends to sue these defendants under state
law based on diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
Moreover, because plaintiff is a citizen of Wisconsin and he
alleges that Mayo Health Care and St. Francis are located in
La Crosse, Wisconsin, the parties' citizenship is
not diverse for purposes of this court exercising
jurisdiction under § 1332. Finally, his allegations do
not appear to implicate any federal claims, as he does not
claim that Mayo Health Care or St. Francis is a government
actor or that either defendant violated any federal law.
Accordingly, all of plaintiff's claims in case number
16-cv-396-wmc must be dismissed.
Case No. 16-cv-568
number 16-cv-568, Perket alleges that he retained the law
firm of Flottmeyer, Burgos, Ryan and Sayner to represent him
in foreclosure-related matters. After the firm initially
seemed to agree to represent him, he claims they later
antagonized him during consultations and then stated that
they would no longer represent him. He also claims that the
firm refused to refund any money to him from their trust fund
accounts. Perket seeks to sue the law firm for damages and
is no even articulable basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction over Perket's claims in this case. First,
the court does not have jurisdiction under § 1331
because Perket's claims do not implicate any
federal law. Rather, claims for legal malpractice, theft,
breach of fiduciary duty or other similar claims Perket may
be attempting to raise all arise solely under state law.
Second, this court does not have jurisdiction over the state
law claims under § 1332 because Perket alleges that ...