Frohwerk v. Buss et al

Filing 124

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/9/12. cc:pltf(kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DAVID FROHWERK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
EDWIN G. BUSS, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 2:11-CV-70 PS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff David Frohwerk, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint [DE 1], a motion to sue
defendants [DE 43], a motion for leave to file amended complaint [DE 53], a second complaint
[DE 59] a third complaint [DE 59], a motion for leave to amend [DE 66] and another motion for
leave to amend [DE 82]. All of these complaints or requests for leave to amend were stricken
from the record or denied as inadequate.
The Plaintiff’s original complaint named multiple defendants, and raised unrelated claims
for violations of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and
unusual punishments clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. On June 20,
2011, in its order striking the complaint, the Court afforded “the Plaintiff to and including July
21, 2011, within which to file an amended complaint that contains no unrelated claims, and does
not contain any claim he has already raised in one of the seven cases he has filed since he filed
his original complaint in this case” [DE 109 at 3]. The court cautioned him “that if he does not
respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice” [Id.].
The Plaintiff responded with an unintelligible amended complaint [DE 115] that was one
hundred and twenty six pages long, and which apparently dealt with many unrelated claims. On

October 18, 2011, this Court struck this amended complaint because it was not a short plain
statement of Frohwerk’s claims and because it appeared to contain many unrelated issues in
violation of George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The Court gave “the Plaintiff
one more, but only one more, chance to file a succinct amended complaint” [DE 123]. But
instead of filing an amended complaint that complied with the pleading standards set forth in
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), Mr. Frohwerk has submitted a letter in which he asks the court to
consolidate several cases in which he has filed unrelated claims against numerous individuals,
including “2:11cv70PS; 2:11cv133RM; 2:11cv200TS; 2:11cv201WL; 2:11cv202WL;
2:11cv209PS; and 2:11cv210RL.” [DE 123 at 1].
As the Court has told Frohwerk several times before:
A buckshot complaint . . . say, a suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B
defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a debt, and E infringed his
copyright, all in different transactions should be rejected . . . . [M]ultiple claims
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be
joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits . . . .
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). More recently, the Seventh Circuit
criticized a district court for disregarding George, and reemphasized “that unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, not only to prevent the
sort of morass produced by multi-claim, multi-defendants suits like this one, but also to
ensure that prisoners pay all fees required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Citing George, the Seventh Circuit held that “[c]omplaints like this one from Owens
should be rejected..., either by severing the action into separate lawsuits or by dismissing
improperly joined defendants.” Id.
2

Pursuant to George v. Smith and Owens v. Hinsley, this Court must reject the
Plaintiff’s attempt to consolidate several cases into this cause number involving unrelated
claims against separate defendants. Furthermore, “leave to amend may be denied if the
new complaint does not cure deficiencies in the old one and is doomed to the same fate.”
Owens, 635 F.3d at 956. Because the Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint within
the time allowed, after being warned of the consequences, the Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s request to
consolidate cause numbers 2:11cv70PS; 2:11cv133RM; 2:11cv200TS; 2:11cv201WL;
2:11cv202WL; 2:11cv209PS; and 2:11cv210RL [DE 123], and DISMISSES this cause of
action without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: January 9, 2012

/s/ Philip P. Simon
Philip P. Simon, Judge
United States District Court

3