Borkholder et al v. National City Bank of Indiana
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE granting 5 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 8/8/12. (smp) Modified on 8/8/2012 to add text (smp).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DEVON W. BORKHOLDER,
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
(f/k/a National City Bank of Indiana),
CAUSE NO.: 3:12-CV-312-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, Devon W. Borkholder1 filed a submission that the Court construed as a
Complaint, which is captioned as follows:
IN THE DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-POSTAL-VESSEL-COURT-VENUE
IN THE INDIANA-TERRITORY WITHIN THIS FEDERAL-COURTVENUE-BUILDING ARE WITH THE TRANSFER FROM THE STATECOURT-VENUE TO THIS DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-POSTAL-VESSELFEDERAL-COURT-VENUE.
FOR THIS TEN-DAY-GRACE-TIME-RESCISSION-ACT-CLAIM IS WITH
THIS CONTINUOUS-QUO-WARRANTO-COMPLAINT-DOCUMENTCLAIM AND: LIS-PENDENS-LIEN CLAIM:
(Compl. 1, ECF No. 1 (emphasis in original)). The remainder of the pleading is styled in the
same manner, followed by a copy of a mortgage with each word marked with a number in
accordance with the following symbol key stamped on each page:
The Plaintiff maintains that the marked-up mortgage is the evidence in support of his claims.
In his filing, the Plaintiff styles his name as “Devon-W.: Borkholder.”
On July 3, 2012, the Defendant, PNC Bank, National Association, filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 5], on grounds that it was “completely unintelligible and
inadequate on its face,” and that, “[d]espite a good faith review,” the Defendant was not able to
“understand the Complaint or frame a response.”2 The Defendant argues that the Complaint
does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Plaintiff has not filed a response.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
provides: “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “A plaintiff . . .
must provide only enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests, and, through his allegations, show that it is plausible, rather than
merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083
(7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Legal conclusions can provide a complaint’s framework, but unless wellpleaded factual allegations move the claims from conceivable to plausible, they are insufficient
The Defendant’s Motion assumes that, in addition to Borkholder, David Wynn Miller is a
plaintiff in this action. Although this lawsuit was opened in the name of both plaintiffs, the Clerk of Court
subsequently removed Miller as a plaintiff. His signature was not on the pleading and the Civil Cover
Sheet lists only Borkholder as a plaintiff. It appears that Borkholder invoked Miller’s name because he is
relying on a language style advocated by Miller, not because Miller is a plaintiff in this action. According
to Miller’s websites, he discovered the mathematical interface for language and invented “CORRECTSENTENCE-STRUCTURE-COMMUNICATION-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR (C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.G),” or “QUANTUM-LANGUAGE-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR,” a “Correct Language . . . based on
fact,” which is “purely Mathematical.” See :JUDGE; DAVID-WYNN; MILLER, http://www.dwmlc.com
(last visited Aug. 7, 2012); :David-Wynn: Miller.com, http://www.davidwynnmiller.com (last visited
Aug. 7, 2010). As noted by other courts faced with submissions prepared in Miller’s style, “the official
language of the Court is standard American English.” United States v. Kriemelmeyer, 2007 WL 5479293,
at *2 (W.D. Wis. July 26, 2007), cited by Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Halajian, 2012 WL 1076218,
at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012).
to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950–51 (2009).
The Plaintiff’s twenty-five page filing is incoherent and unintelligible and, as such, fails
to provide, in a short and plain statement of the claim, fair notice of the Plaintiff’s claim or the
grounds upon which it rests or to present any facts from which is can be inferred that he is
plausibly entitled to relief due to actions taken by the Defendant. The indecipherable allegations
lack any cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable theory. A “plaintiff
must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds
together,” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010), but the Court is unable
to even determine what story the Plaintiff is attempting to tell through his assertions, as example
of which follows:
FOR THESE CAUSES OF THIS QUO-WARRANTO-COMPLAINT and:
-1 FOR THE C.-S.-S.-C.-P.-S.-G.-CORRECTIONS OF THE
FRAUDULENT-SYNTAX-MODIFICATION-COMMUNICATIONCOURT-VENUE-DOCUMENTS ARE WITH THE FRAUDULENT-SYNTAXGRAMMAR-CLAIMS OF THE VASSALEE'S-WRONG-WORDCOMMUNICATION-EVIDENCE- BONDED-HEREIN WITH THE
THREE-TIMES-EQUITY-DAMAGES OF THE CLAYTON-ACT-(1914) BY
(Compl. 3.) “[W]here the lack of organization and basic coherence renders a complaint too
confusing to determine the facts that constitute the alleged wrongful conduct, dismissal is an
appropriate remedy.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 798 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Hoskins v.
Polestra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss
frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal
expense . . . even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service.”). Although a district
court should “allow ample opportunity for amending the complaint when it appears that by doing
so the pro se litigant would be able to state a meritorious claim,” Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d
965, 970 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th
Cir. 1996)), the Plaintiff has included nothing in his submission to suggest that he will be able to
state a meritorious claim. His allegations are rooted in an incomprehensible method of document
interpretation and written communication, and the Complaint suffers from more than a
technicality or curative shortcoming.
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 5].
SO ORDERED on August 8, 2012.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?