Buy This Entire Record For
Thom v. Garrigan
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
June 26, 2019
DAVID THOM, CRYSTAL 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, ROBERT BECKER, CHARLES CHURCH, and MARK HAZELBAKER, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.
civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief,
plaintiffs David Thom, Crystal Thom, William Cadwallader,
Robert Wentworth, Raymond Boyle, and Michael O'Grady have
raised numerous federal and state constitutional claims
against 40 defendants associated with numerous local
government entities, including the City of Portage, Portage
School District, Columbia County, the City of Lodi, the
Village of Pardeeville, and Marquette County. On March 25,
2019, I issued an order that granted, in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss several of plaintiffs'
claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted and as barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. Dkt. 100. I explained that plaintiffs'
remaining allegations could be grouped into the following
categories of claims:
• Lawsuit 1: Plaintiffs' challenge to searches and
seizures performed in schools by local law enforcement and a
multi-county drug task force, including targeted searches,
seizures, and interrogations of plaintiffs David and Chrystal
Thom and plaintiff O'Grady's vehicle and children
(Counts 1, 2, and 3);
• Lawsuit 2: Plaintiff Wentworth's claim that his
business has been targeted for excessive surveillance and
that his customers and employees have been harassed by local
law enforcement (Count 6);
• Lawsuit 3: Plaintiff O'Grady's challenge to
the Portage High School's parking permit policy and the
ticket he received (Count 7);
• Lawsuit 4: Plaintiff Boyle's challenge to a
Village of Pardeeville ordinance relating to riding lawn
mowers and a ticket he received (part of Count 8);
• Lawsuit 5: Plaintiff Boyle's challenge to a
warrantless entry into his residence and a subsequent
unlawful arrest (part of Count 8); and
• Lawsuit 6: Plaintiffs' claim that defendants
Church, Hazelbaker, and other defendants have taken various
actions in retaliation for plaintiffs filing this lawsuit
(supplement to complaint, Dkt. 64).
these claims could not proceed together in the same lawsuit
and many of plaintiffs' allegations were argumentative
and confusing, I dismissed the remainder of plaintiffs'
amended complaint without prejudice under Rules 8 and 20 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I explained that if
plaintiffs wanted to proceed with their lawsuit, they needed
(1) identify which single lawsuit from the list above that
they wish to proceed with under this case number;
(2) draft an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and
includes only the allegations related to the single lawsuit
on which plaintiffs will proceed under this case number; and
(3) explain whether they will proceed with the other lawsuits
under new case numbers.
O'Grady responded to the March 25 order by filing a
response, Dkt. 101, a motion for extension of time to
respond, Dkt. 102, and a proposed amended complaint relating
to Lawsuit 3 above, Dkt. 105. Plaintiffs Crystal Thom and
David Thom also filed a motion for extension of time, Dkt.
103, and joined O'Grady in filing a proposed amended
complaint related to Lawsuit 1, Dkt. 104. Plaintiff Boyle
filed his own motion for extension of time, Dkt. 106, stating
that he intends to pursue Lawsuits 4 and 5. All of the
plaintiffs then joined with three new proposed
plaintiffs--Joann Winter, Robert Zeier, and John Gruber--to
file a motion requesting leave to file a new complaint
challenging the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute.
Dkt. 107 and Dkt. 108. Finally, O'Grady, Crystal Thom,
David Thom, Boyle, Zeier, Winter, and Gruber filed proposed
complaints alleging that they had been retaliated against for
filing this case and for other protected activity. Dkt. 109
and Dkt. 110.
denying all of the pending motions because they do not comply
with the instructions I gave in the March 25 order. Instead
of choosing one of the six lawsuits identified above and
filing a single amended complaint, plaintiffs have filed
several complaints within this case. It appears that
plaintiffs wish to proceed on all of the lawsuits identified
above, in addition to new claims regarding Wisconsin statutes
and acts of retaliation. But plaintiffs have submitted only
one filing fee and can ...