Schwartz et al v. Interra Credit Union

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The action is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 10/3/12. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
:LAMAR-R..: SCHWARTZ, and
:DAVID-WYNN: MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERRA CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12 CV 413

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Lamar R. Schwartz and David Wynn Miller (spelling their names in the
ordinary way, as opposed to the stylized method in the complaint, which the court has
attempted to reproduce above) have filed a complaint against defendant Interra Credit
Union. (DE # 1.) The complaint, including attachments, is twenty-three pages long and
is completely unintelligible.1 Not surprisingly, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this
action for failure to state a claim because of the complaint’s incoherence and
unintelligibility, or in the alternative for a more definite statement. (DE # 7.) The court
ordered plaintiffs to file a response to the motion by September 12, 2012. (DE # 9.) They
did not do so. Instead, on September 28, 2012, they filed an equally incomprehensible
document which the clerk has abbreviated on the docket sheet as “Writ of the Fault,” a
phrase that does appear on the first page of the filing. (DE # 11.)

The second attachment appears to be a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac uniform single
family mortgage instrument, and is not itself unintelligible. What is unintelligible is the
meaning intended to be conveyed by the various annotations plaintiffs have made on
the document.
1

RULE 12(b)(6) of the FEDERAL RULES 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). RULE 8 establishes the pleading requirements for a complaint filed in federal
court. RULE 8(a) states:
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). “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).
Defendant’s motion assumes that, in addition to Schwartz, David Wynn Miller is
a plaintiff in this action. Although the civil cover sheet lists only Schwartz as a plaintiff,
the caption of the initial document filed also contains Miller’s name, and the document
contains a printed signature and thumb-print which appear (the court assumes) to be

2

intended to indicate that Miller is a party. Therefore, like defendant, the court assumes
that Miller is a party-plaintiff.2
Plaintiffs’ twenty-three page filing is incoherent and unintelligible. As such, it
fails to provide, in a short and plain statement of the claim(s), fair notice of the claim or
the grounds upon which it rests, or to present any facts from which it can be inferred
that either plaintiff is plausibly entitled to some form of 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 even to
determine what story plaintiffs are attempting to tell through their assertions.
[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

Moreover, the complaint is drafted in the style of a “language” apparently
advocated by Miller. According to websites purporting to belong to Miller or to reflect
his views, the “English Language Has Been Deliberately Modified To Enslave Us!”
davidwynnmiller.com (last visited Oct. 2, 2012); see also dwmlc.com (last visited Oct. 2,
2012). In 1988 Miller discovered the “mathematical interface for language,” and then
“set out to correct the world’s legal institutions.” Id.
2

3

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)), nothing in
plaintiffs’ late response (the “Writ of the Fault”) suggests that they will be able to state a
meritorious claim. The allegations are rooted in an incomprehensible method of written
communication, and the complaint suffers from more than a technicality or curable
shortcoming. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss (DE # 7) is GRANTED, and
this action is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk to enter final judgment.
SO ORDERED.

Date: October 3, 2012

s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT