United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (DKT. NOS. 101,
102), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DKT. NO. 103),
REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE AUTHORITY SUPPORTING ITS
REQUEST FOR RELIEF AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 104)
AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO APPEAR IN PERSON FOR A SANCTIONS
HEARING ON JUNE 6, 2019 AT 10:30 A.M.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filing his complaint in February 2017, the plaintiff has
buried the defendant and its attorneys in filings, many of
which he has also filed with the court. On January 29, 2018,
the court issued an order finding that the plaintiff's
complaint did not state a claim for a violation of any
provision of the federal Constitution or of federal law. Dkt.
No. 52. Understanding that the plaintiff was representing
himself, however, the court gave him the opportunity to amend
his complaint to state such a claim. Id. at 10. The
court ordered, however, that “neither party shall
engage in discovery-demand documents from the other side, or
file motions asking the court to require the other party to
provide documents-until the court issues a scheduling order .
. . .” Id. at 14.
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 27, 2018.
Dkt. No. 60. Two weeks later, defendant Planet Home Lending
filed a motion asking the court to impose sanctions,
including dismissal. Dkt. No. 61. Planet asserted that
although the court had ordered that neither party could
demand documents from the other until the court ordered
discovery to start, the plaintiff had continued to demand
information from the defendant. Dkt. No. 61-1. It asserted
that the plaintiff also had filed a separate lawsuit in
Racine County. Id. at 3. Planet asked the court to
punish the plaintiff for failing to follow the court's
order by dismissing this lawsuit. Id. at 4. This
motion prompted a flood of filings from the plaintiff-between
March 14, 2018 and March 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed
thirty motions, letters and other documents.
filed another request for sanctions and asked for a hearing.
Dkt. No. 94. In an order dated March 21, 2019, the court
denied the plaintiffs' many motions, as well as
Planet's motions for sanctions. Dkt. No. 96. The court
screened the amended complaint, and dismissed Michael Dubek,
Jeffrey Bergida and Mark Clauss as defendants. Id.
at 34. The court also dismissed a number of the
plaintiff's frivolous claims, but concluded
that-construing his complaint very broadly-he may
have stated a claim under RESPA that Planet did not correctly
respond to a qualified written request, a claim under TILA
that Planet may have failed to provide information required
by the statute, and a claim under the FDCPA that Planet tried
to collect a debt the plaintiff did not owe and falsely
represented the amount of the debt. Id. at 18-23. At
the end of the order, the court explained, as clearly as it
could, the next step in the litigation-the court would allow
the defendant to respond to the claims it had allowed to go
forward. Id. at 32-33. The court stated, however,
that “[u]ntil the defendant responds to the amended
complaint, there is nothing else for the plaintiff to do. The
court will order the plaintiff not to file any other
documents-no letters, no affidavits, no notices, no motions,
nothing-until he hears from the court.”
Id. at 33. The court also stated that
[i]f the plaintiff wants to proceed with the three claims
upon which the court has allowed him to proceed, he must stop
clogging the court's docket with filings. He must stop
burying the defendant in paper. He must stop demanding that
this court declare him the winner of this lawsuit before the
lawsuit even has gotten underway. He must follow the rules
that every litigant in this court must follow-the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and this court's local rules
(which the plaintiff can access on the court's web site,
The court has denied the defendant's two motions for
sanctions. If, however, the plaintiff continues to flood the
court and the defendant with repetitive, frivolous pleadings,
and fails to follow this court's orders and the federal
and local rules, the court will have a basis to
consider any future requests for sanctions.
Id. at 33-34.
April 9, 2019, the defendant responded to the amended
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 97. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a defendant to file a
motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.
Under this court's local rules, the plaintiff had
twenty-one days to file a brief opposing that motion. Civ.
L.R. 7(b). On April 18, 2019, the court received a two-page
document from the plaintiff, which said, “Any/all court
decisions re: the above case is/are: ACCEPTED FOR HONOR ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.” Dkt. No. 99. The rest of
the document quoted some statutes that don't apply to
this case and some sections of the UCC. Id. at 1-2.
The plaintiff also filed ninety-four pages of documents, most
of which he has filed before in support of the portions of
his complaint and amended complaint that this court dismissed
as frivolous and unfounded. Dkt. No. 99-1. The defendant
(generously) considered this document dump as a brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and filed its reply.
Dkt. No. 100. As of May 1, 2019-the date the defendant filed
its reply-the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, and all
that is left is for the court to rule on that motion.
May 8, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel evidence.
Dkt. No. 101. This “motion” reiterates all the
frivolous arguments the court rejected in its March 21, 2019
order. Not two weeks later, the plaintiff filed this same
motion again. Dkt. No. 102. On May 22, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a motion for temporary restraining order and immediate
injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 103. He asserted that the
defendant had notified him of its intent to accelerate his
loan, and had threatened foreclosure if he did not cure the
default. Id. He alleged that the “judge in
this case”-the court can't tell whether he means
this court, or the judge in the state-court case-had allowed
the case to proceed “to a stage placing Plaintiff's
property, health and life at risk, ” and alleged that
“the judge and defendants are cooperating to drive
Plaintiff into receivership and destitution for making a case
against fraudulent lender practices and now must become
victim to same.” Id.
the court received from the defendant a renewed request for
sanctions. Dkt. No. 104. The defendant argues that the
documents the plaintiff has filed in the last two weeks
violate the court's order telling the plaintiff that he
could not file anything else until he heard from the court.
Id. at 1. Most concerning, the motion alleges that
the plaintiff has recorded with the Racine County Register of
deeds a $4, 014, 012 notice of lien against Planet's CEO,
Michael Dubeck and its lawyer, Mark Clauss (both of whom the
court dismissed as defendants back in March). Id.;
Dkt. No. 104-1. The notice indicates that the plaintiff is
trying to place a lien on the property of Dubeck and Clauss.
Id. at 2. The defendant indicates that there are
other documents “of record” that harm it, such as
outstanding UCC financing statements, a “recorded
‘Correction Instrument' appointing Judge Pepper as
[the plaintiff's] personal trustee, ” and “a
UCC Financing Statement saying the United States of America
owes [the plaintiff] $900, 000, 000, 000.00.” Dkt. No.
104 at 2. The defendant asks the court to enter an order
“in a form that [Planet] can record with the register
of deeds invalidating the $4.14M liens against Planet's
personnel and one of its attorneys” and
“invalidating [the plaintiff's] appointment of
Judge Pepper as his trustee.” Id. at 3. The
defendant asks the court to make these orders in rem
so as to bar the plaintiff from filing them again in the
future, to grant the defendant its fees and costs and to
dismiss the case with prejudice. Id.
court will dismiss the plaintiff's motions to compel and
the motion for injunctive relief. As noted above, the motions
to compel contain the same assertions that this court
dismissed in March. As for the request for injunctive relief,
the plaintiff has not demonstrated the factors required to
obtain injunctive relief in federal court-a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits of his case, no adequate
remedy at law and irreparable harm. See,
e.g., Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Indus.,
Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984).
the defendant's motion for sanctions, the time has come
for the court to consider that request. The court has assumed
for some time now that the plaintiff may struggle with health
or mental health issues, given the nature of his filings. It
has tried to give him an opportunity to state a valid federal
claim. It has tried to keep in mind that he is not a lawyer
and may not understand the rules that govern federal
litigation or the relevant law. It has tried to assume that
the plaintiff is acting in good faith, and simply struggles
with issues that many people who represent themselves
confront. But the plaintiff now has re-filed pleadings that
the court expressly dismissed, despite the court's order
dismissing those claims. Much more concerning, he has taken
legal action against the defendant's CEO and its lawyer,
private citizens who are not parties to this lawsuit and who
are doing their jobs. He has tried to place liens on Mr.
Dubeck's home and other property, and on Mr. Clauss's
home and other property. This action is personal, vindictive
court is going to hold a hearing at the date and time it
provides below. It will require the plaintiff to appear at
this hearing. The court is formally giving the plaintiff
notice that at this hearing, it will consider whether to use
its inherent authority to sanction the plaintiff for failing
to follow the court's March 21, 2019 order. See Fuery
v. City of Chi., 900 F.3d 450, 464 (7th Cir. 2018)
(“A district court may impose sanctions under its
inherent authority ‘where a party has willfully abused
the judicial process or otherwise conducted litigation in bad
faith.'”). The plaintiff must be prepared to
explain to the court at this hearing why the court should not
sanction him for filing documents making arguments the court
already has rejected, for filing duplicative motions and for
abusing the litigation process by trying to place a lien on
the homes of the defendant's CEO and ...