Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perket v. Mayo Health Care St. Francis Hospital

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

August 21, 2017

SCOT ALAN PERKET, Plaintiff,
v.
MAYO HEALTH CARE, ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, and BUFFALO COUNTY COURT, Defendants. SCOT ALAN PERKET, Plaintiff,
v.
LAW FIRM OF FLOTTMEYER, BURGOS, RYAN AND SAYNER; DAN RYAN; AND WILLIAM FLOTTMEYER, Defendants. SCOT ALAN PERKET, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL PAPPAS, VERVE CREDIT UNION AND MOUNT MORRIS MUTUAL OF COLOMA, Defendants. SCOT ALAN PERKET, Plaintiff,
v.
AHMC ASSET MANAGEMENT OF EAU CLAIRE, BUFFALO COUNTY, LA CROSSE COUNTY AND WEDGEWOOD COMMONS, Defendants. SCOT ALAN PERKET, Plaintiff,
v.
LA CROSS COUNTY JAIL DEPUTIES, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge

         Pro 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 fee.[1] 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.[2] Those motions to dismiss are addressed in a separate order issued today.

         With 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.

         OPINION

          A 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. § 1332.

         I. Case No. 16-cv-396

          In 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.

         In 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.

         Finally, 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.

         While 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.

         In 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.

         II. Case No. 16-cv-568

         In case 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 injunctive relief.

         There 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 ยง 1332 because Perket alleges that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.