EGWUENU v. BRENNAN et al

Filing 67

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the reasons listed in this Entry, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss filed by Dr. Feldman (Filing No. 29 ), Bettinger (Filing No. 34 ) and Brennan (Filing No. 65 ). Because it may be possible that Egwuenu migh t have a viable claim under some set of facts that have not been sufficiently alleged, his pro se Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Egwuenu is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry to file an amended complaint, free of the deficiencies specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Discussion section above. Regarding the remaining motions: Egwuenu's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Order (Filing No. 2 ) is DENIED as moot; Motion for Appointment of a Ma ster to Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing No. 4 ) is DENIED; Amended Motion for Sanction (Filing No. 43 ) is DENIED; Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 49 ) is DENIED; Supplemental Motion for Sanction (Filing No. 51 ) is DENIED; Motion to Strike Defendant Feldman's Motion to Stay Response (Filing No. 61 ) is DENIED as moot; and his Motion for Default Judgment against Brennan (Filing No. 62 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/29/2017. (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WILSON EGWUENU,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN BRENNAN, Hon., WALTER BETTINGER,
and JOE FELDMAN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:17-cv-01691-TWP-MPB
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on several pending motions: Motion for Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction Order (Filing No. 2) filed by Plaintiff Wilson Egwuenu (“Egwuenu”);
Motion for Appointment of a Master to Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing No. 4) filed by
Egwuenu; Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 8(A), 12 (B)(6) and Alternative Motion to Drop Joe
Feldman as a Party Defendant Under Rules 20 and 21 (Filing No. 29) filed by Defendant Joe
Feldman (“Feldman”); Motions (I) to Dismiss Complaint Under Rules 12(B)(2) and 12(B)(6) and
(II) for an Order Regulating Further Actions (Filing No. 34) filed by Defendant Walter Bettinger
(“Bettinger”); Amended Motion for Sanction (Filing No. 43) filed by Egwuenu; Motion for
Reconsideration (Filing No. 49) filed by Egwuenu; Supplemental Motion for Sanction (Filing No.
51) filed by Egwuenu; Motion to Strike Defendant Feldman’s Motion to Stay Response (Filing
No. 61) filed by Egwuenu; and Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 62) filed by Egwuenu,
(collectively, “the Pending Motions”). On November 27, 2017 Defendant Megan Brennan filed a
Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 65.) The Courts considers and rules on each motion in this Entry.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2017, Egwuenu, a citizen of Polk County, Iowa, filed a 46 page, single spaced

Complaint consisting of 255 paragraphs, against the Defendants alleging that each in their official
capacity committed various wrongdoings against him. (Filing No. 1.) On that same date, Egwuenu
filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 2), and Motion for Appointment of a Master
to Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing No. 4). The Defendants are Hon. Megan Brennan, United
States Postmaster General and CEO of the United States Postal Services (“Brennan”), Walter
Bettinger, President and CEO of Charles Schwab, and Dr. Joe Feldman, President and CEO of St.
Vincent Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana.
The claims alleged are Count I: Conspiracy to Deprive Person of Civil Rights, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1985; Count II: Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
Count III: Retaliation Against Plaintiff for Accessing the Court; Count IV: Interference with
Plaintiff’s Meaningful Access to Court and Spoliation of Evidence; Count V: Employment
Discrimination and Retaliatory Termination; Count VI: Interference with Plaintiff’s Contractual
Relationships; Count VII: Interference with Plaintiff’s Prospective Contractual Relationship;
Count VII: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (the Court notes that these two counts listed
as Count VII); Count VIII: Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Count VIII: Negligence (the Court again
notes that there are two counts are listed Count VIII); Count IX: Negligence Per Se; Count X:
Defamation, Libel, and Slander of Plaintiff; Count XI: Private Nuisance and Torture; Count XII:
Unjust Enrichment; Count XII: Unlawful Search of Home Without Warrant (the Court notes that
there are two counts are listed as Count XII); Count XIV: Concert of Action, Individual, Joint, and
Several Liability (the Court notes there is no Count XIII); Count XV: RICO; Count XVI: Hobbs
Act Violations (Extortion); and Count XVII: Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
On September 1, 2017 Dr. Feldman filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
(Filing No. 29). Dr. Feldman argues the very lengthy Complaint fails to meet the notice pleadings

2

requirements under Rule 8 and creates an unintelligible patchwork of allegations. Dr. Feldman
asks the Court to dismiss Egwuenu’s Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). Alternatively,
if this Court finds that Egwuenu has successfully stated any claim, he moves to be dropped as a
defendant to this case for misjoinder of parties under Rules 20 and 21.
On September 11, 2017, Bettinger filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(6). (Filing No. 34.) Bettinger argues that Egwuenu is a serial litigator who has filed four
actions in the Southern District of Indiana, each seeking to redress substantially the same group of
defendants and nearly the same perceived grievances and courts in the Southern District of Indiana
have thrice dismissed Egwuenu’s cases 1. Bettinger seeks dismissal under 12(b)(2) because this
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Further, Bettinger asserts dismissal is appropriate
under Rule 12(b)(6) based on res judicata, he is not plausibly connected to the unintelligible
allegations, and the allegations fail to state a claim.
On November 13, 2017, Egwuenu filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant
Brennan, the United States Postmaster General (Filing No. 62). Thereafter, Brennan filed a Motion
to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5), on the grounds
that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Postmaster General because Egwuenu
has not effected service of process within 90 days of the filing of the complaint. (Filing No. 65).
II. DISCUSSION
Despite delivering a copy of his Complaint to the local United States Attorney, Egwuenu
failed to deliver a copy of his Complaint to Brennan directly, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

1
Egwuenu v. Mueller et al., 1:09-cv-01026-WTL-TAB: Dismissed for failure to state a “plain and simple statement”
under Rule 8(a), misjoinder under then Rule 19, lack of “facial plausibility,” after court allowed a second amended
complaint to cure the same deficiencies (Dkt. 37, 38). Egwuenu v. Defur et al., 1:10-cv-01462-TWP-TAB: Dismissed
and stricken for failure to prosecute after court ruled complaint violated Rule 20 and was “unintelligible” under Rule
8(a) (Dkt. 7, 8). Egwuenu v. Potter et al., 1:11-cv-01395-WTL-DML: Dismissed with prejudice for failure to satisfy
Rule 8(a)(2) (Dkt. 46, 47).

3

Procedure 4(i), to perfect service on a United States agency, officer, or employee. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(i)(2). Because Egwuenu failed to perfect service on Brennan, his Motion for Default Judgment
against Brennan (Filing No. 62) is denied. For this same reason, the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction on the Postmaster General and Brennan’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. (Filing No.
65).
Regarding the other motions to dismiss, the Court agrees that Egwuenu’s Complaint
violates the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), violates the misjoinder
of claims limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), and is unintelligible. Under Rule
8(a), a complaint must contain a short and plain statement of facts that states a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face and that provides a defendant with fair notice of what claims are being
brought against it and the grounds supporting such claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Alt. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008).
Pro se complaints are generally “held to ‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.’” Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 309 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972)). Additionally, Rule 20(a)(2) states that a plaintiff may join multiple defendants
in a single action if “any right to relief is asserted against them … with respect to or arising out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and if “any question of
law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
Here, Egwuenu’s Complaint, is unintelligible. It brings a series of unrelated claims and
the Complaint does not describe any connection that may exist between Defendants Dr. Feldman,
Bettinger, and Brennan. If Egwuenu wishes to state claims against the Defendants that are
unrelated to one another, he must bring each unrelated claim in a separate lawsuit. Furthermore,
although Egwuenu’s Complaint seemingly attempts to state claims against St. Vincent Hospital

4

and Charles Schwab Corporation, Egwuenu confusingly named Dr. Feldman, the President and
CEO of St. Vincent Hospital, and Bettinger, the President and CEO of Charles Schwab
Corporation, as defendants instead of the companies themselves. See Von der Ruhr v. Immtech
Int’l, Inc., 570 F.3d 858, 866 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Corporate officers normally enjoy protection from
personal liability for acts they commit on behalf of the corporation.”). For all of these reasons, the
Motions to Dismiss filed by Dr. Feldman (Filing No. 29) and Bettinger (Filing No. 34),
respectively, are granted, and Egwuenu’s Complaint is stricken.
Because the action has been dismissed and Complaint stricken, the summonses issued are
quashed. Because Egwuenu’s Complaint is stricken, his Motion for Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction (Filing No. 2) is denied as moot.
In his Response to Bettinger’s Motion to Dismiss, Egwuenu incorporated a Motion for
Leave to File First Amended Counts or Claims, as well as his Proposed Amended Claims or
Counts. (Filing No. 52 at 2-19.) However, Egwuenu’s motion does not comply with the
requirements of Local Rule 15-1. Under Local Rule 15-1, a motion to amend a pleading must be
filed separately and must be accompanied by a proposed order and a copy of the proposed amended
pleading. Because Egwuenu has not filed a separate motion for leave to amend his Complaint with
his proposed amended complaint attached, Egwuenu’s Proposed Amended Claims or Counts
are stricken.
Egwuenu’s Motion for Appointment of a Master to Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing
No. 4) is denied because Egwuenu has made no showing that exceptional circumstances exist here
to necessitate such an appointment and because Egwuenu has the means of preparing and filing an
appropriate complaint.

5

Egwuenu’s Amended Motion for Sanctions (Filing No. 43), Motion for Reconsideration of
Order on Motion for Sanctions (Filing No. 49), and Supplemental Motion for Sanctions (Filing
No. 51) are all denied because Egwuenu has provided no evidence that any party in this litigation
“has willfully abused the judicial process” or has otherwise acted in bad faith in relation to this
action. Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing
Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 470-71 (7th Cir. 2003)).
Finally, because the Court granted Feldman’s Motion to Stay on October 31, 2017 (Filing
No. 56), Egwuenu’s Motion to Strike Feldman’s Motion to Stay Response (Filing No. 61) is
denied as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons listed in this Entry, the Court GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss filed by
Dr. Feldman (Filing No. 29), Bettinger (Filing No. 34) and Brennan (Filing No. 65). Because it
may be possible that Egwuenu might have a viable claim under some set of facts that have not
been sufficiently alleged, his pro se Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Egwuenu is
granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Entry to file an amended complaint, free of the
deficiencies specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Discussion section above. Only related claims
may be filed in an amended complaint under this case number. In particular, Egwuenu must bring
unrelated claims against unrelated parties in separate lawsuits against the proper party and each
complaint must state a short and plain statement of the facts. A separate filing fee must be paid in
each case. If filed, an amended complaint in this action will become the operative complaint. If
an amended complaint is not filed within the time period discussed above, the dismissal of this
action will be with prejudice and final judgment will issue.

6

Regarding the remaining motions: Egwuenu’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction Order (Filing No. 2) is DENIED as moot; Motion for Appointment of a Master to
Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing No. 4) is DENIED; Amended Motion for Sanction (Filing
No. 43) is DENIED; Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 49) is DENIED; Supplemental
Motion for Sanction (Filing No. 51) is DENIED; Motion to Strike Defendant Feldman’s Motion
to Stay Response (Filing No. 61) is DENIED as moot; and his Motion for Default Judgment
against Brennan (Filing No. 62) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/29/2017

DISTRIBUTION:
Mr. Wilson Egwuenu
P.O. Box 40651
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
Adeyemi Adenrele
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
David Benjamin Honig
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN, PC
[e-mail]
Andrew B. Howk
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN, PC
[e-mail]
Jill Z. Julian
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

7

Matthew M. Schappa
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN, PC (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Vincent P. Schmeltz
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]

8