Martin v. NIPSCO et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER striking 12 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, 15 MOTION for Default Judgment as to, 25 MOTION for Order to Show Cause, 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 8 Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause, Order on Motion to Stay. Motion granted in part and denying in part 26 RULE 12(f) MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Filing and Dismiss Northern Trust with Prejudice, or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Filings with Prejudice, or, in the Alternative, to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgmen filed by Northern Trust Corporation. However, his lawsuit remains DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 5/29/2013. (kds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
Kurt Martin,
Plaintiff,
v.

NIPSCO et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-cv-052 PPS

ORDER AND OPINION
On January 30, 2013, I dismissed Plaintiff Kurt Martin’s lawsuit sua sponte because I
couldn’t understand what grievance he was asking me to redress. (DE 8.) I gave him leave to
amend because I wanted to give him the opportunity to refile a new complaint if he could
articulate his claims in a way that I could understand. Martin hasn’t taken me up on that second
chance. Instead, he has filed a number of increasingly bizarre “motions” asking me – among
other things – to order a sheriff’s weight in gold to be paid to either him or a friend of his (I can’t
tell which one) (DE 12), to declare that one or more banks have committed cruelty to one of his
friend’s animals (DE 25), and to hold Defendant Northern Trust in violation of the Geneva
Convention for improperly holding prisoners of war. (DE 31.) All in all, there are six motions
pending, four filed by Martin (DE 11; DE 12; DE 15; DE 25), one filed by Defendant St. Joseph
County Board of Commissioners (DE 18), and one filed by Defendant Northern Trust. (DE 26.)
The last two are what I’ll address now. St. Joseph’s asks me to strike Martin’s various
filings and re-dismiss the case, this time with prejudice. Northern Trust requests similar relief.
As to the first part of what they want, they’re entitled to it. All of Martin’s pending motions are
stricken. With all due respect to Martin, they are simply incomprehensible.

But I’m a little hesitant to dismiss his case with prejudice (as opposed to its current status
of dismissed without prejudice). Here’s why. The Seventh Circuit is clear that a district court
judges is within his or her right to dismiss a case with prejudice where the plaintiff is incapable
of complying with Rule 8's “short and plain statement” requirement. See, e.g., Garst v.
Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378-79 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Complaints like this are
pestilential, and the district court showed great restraint in wading through four iterations plus
one ‘more definite statement’ before giving up. [The plaintiff] received more judicial attention
than his pleadings deserved.”); see also Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011)
(holding that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a plaintiff repeatedly fails to meet
Rule 8's requirement).
The main problem is that virtually all of the cases in which dismissal with prejudice was
appropriate involve a plaintiff who filed multiple – usually three or more – unintelligible
complaints. Here, Martin has only filed one (though I suppose I could see an argument that
February 20, 2013 Motion to Alter or Amend is best viewed as a second complaint). Therefore,
in perhaps what is an overabundance of caution, I’m going to give him one final opportunity.
Martin’s case remains dismissed with leave to amend; if he thinks that he can articulate his
grievance so that I can understand it, he is free to try to do so. But I caution Martin that if he
files another incomprehensible pleading, I likely will dismiss the matter with prejudice. I also
may consider taking further action to prevent him from wasting this Court’s time as a vexatious
litigant. See, e.g., In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 904-06 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that it was
proper for a district court judge to refer a vexatious litigant to the district executive committee to
issue a screening injunction on future filings).

2

Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the Motions to Strike and Dismiss filed by St.
Joseph’s (DE 18) and Northern Trust (DE 26) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. All of Martin’s pending motions (DE 11; DE 12; DE 15; DE 25) are STRICKEN.
However, his lawsuit remains DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 29, 2013.
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3