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.

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,
v.
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

          JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE.

         In this 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).

         Because 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 to:

(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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I am 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 ...


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.