Buy This Entire Record For
Thom v. Garrigan
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
July 3, 2018
DAVID THOM, CRYSTEL THOM, WILLIAM CADWALLADER, ROBERT L. WENTWORTH, RAYMOND BOYLE, and MICHAEL O'GRADY, Plaintiffs,
DANIEL GARRIGAN, CHARLES POCHES, MATTHEW FOSTER, PETER HIBNER, ROBIN KVALO, BRAD MEIXNER, SUSAN CONNER, SHAWN MURPHY, KENNETH MANTHEY, JASON STENBERG, ROBERT BAGNELL, KEITH KLAFKE, BENJAMIN NEUMANN, KEVIN TODRYK, PETER WARNING, PETER BARTACZEWICZ, ANTHONY BRAUNER, MICHAEL SCHULZ, DAWN WILCOX, MARIE MOE, SCOTT KLICKO, BRIAN NOLL, ROGER BRANDNER, JOSEPH RUF, JORDAN HAUETER, LEDA WAGNER, DOUGLAS JARZYNSKI, DAVID CLARK, MICHAEL HAVERLEY, MARK SMIT, ALEXANDER AGNEW, BENJAMIN OETZMAN, TERRI PULVERMACHER, MAX JENANASCHET, CORY MILLER, GREGORY BISCH, THOMAS M. DRURY, CHARLES MILLER, KATHRYN E. MILLER, and ROBERT BECKER, Defendants.
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
David Thom, Crystel Thom, William Cadwallader, Robert
Wentworth, Raymond Boyle, and Michael O'Grady jointly
bring this lawsuit against a host of officials from the
Portage and Columbia County governments and others, in which
they allege that the officials have collectively participated
in violations of their constitutional rights through the
actions of a multi-county drug task force. The court is
awaiting answers or other responsive pleadings by the various
sets of defendants. Currently before the court are two
O'Grady has filed a motion asking the court to refer
evidence of criminal wrongdoing to the United States attorney
or directly to a grand jury. Dkt. 50. But this court's
role is to resolve disputes in the context of a lawsuit, not
initiate criminal investigations. O'Grady is free to
contact the United States Attorney himself, but I will deny
O'Grady and Boyle seek a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from
participating in ongoing litigation involving plaintiffs and
vacating state-court restraining orders or injunctions that
have been entered in those cases. I take plaintiffs to be
saying that state courts have issued restraining orders
against O'Grady in these cases. (It is unclear why Boyle
but none of the other plaintiffs joined in this motion, as
the motion itself does not mention Boyle.) But this court
does not have the authority to review state-court judges'
decisions to issue injunctive relief against O'Grady.
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party
“complaining of an injury caused by [a] state-court
judgment” cannot seek redress in a lower federal court.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 291-92 (2005). See also D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Generally,
litigants who feel that a state court proceeding has violated
their rights must appeal that decision through the state
court system and then, if appropriate, to the United States
Supreme Court. See Golden v. Helen Sigman & Assoc.,
Ltd., 611 F.3d 356, 361-62 (7th Cir. 2010). If
O'Grady wishes to challenge the injunctions entered
against him, he must do so in state court.
are two other issues that these filings raise. First, when
multiple unrepresented plaintiffs file a case together,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires all of the
plaintiffs to sign each paper the plaintiffs submit to the
court. See Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855
(7th Cir. 2004). That did not happen with these two
submissions. In the future, each plaintiff must sign each
paper, or I will direct the clerk of court to return it.
plaintiff O'Grady faces a filing bar entered by the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court of appeals has
sanctioned him as follows:
future suits or appeals tendered in any court of this circuit
without prepayment of all applicable fees will be rejected.
Moreover, until O'Grady has paid the filing fees already
accumulated in his campaign of litigation, the clerks of
every court in this circuit will decline to accept additional
papers tendered in any suit that may be pending.
See O'Grady v. Habeck, No. 11-3881 (7th Cir.
Apr. 24, 2012). The problem for plaintiffs in this case is
any future filing they submit in this lawsuit must be signed
by O'Grady and thus will run afoul of the
“additional papers” part of the sanction. This
court simply cannot accept filings submitted by O'Grady
unless he has paid off his accumulated debt from his previous
cases. I will give O'Grady a short time to respond to
this order, explaining whether he has indeed paid off this
debt. If he has not, I will have to dismiss the case unless
O'Grady and his co-plaintiffs agree to have him withdraw
as a plaintiff.
IT IS ORDERED that:
Plaintiff Michael O'Grady's motion to refer evidence
of criminal wrongdoing, Dkt. 50, is DENIED.
Plaintiffs O'Grady and Raymond Boyle's motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, Dkt. 52, is DENIED.
Plaintiff O'Grady may have until July 17, 2018, to
respond to this order, explaining whether he has paid off the
filing fees that are the subject ...