EGWUENU v. BRENNAN et al

Filing 79

ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS AND DISMISSAL OF AMENDED COMPLAINT - Egwuenu's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. 68 , is DENIED. Because Egwuenu has failed to cure the defects of his original Complaint after being provided notice of them and ample opp ortunity to do so, the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 75 , is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Regarding the remaining motion: Egwuenu's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. 70 , is DENIED as moot. This action is terminated. Final judgment will be entered in a separate order. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/5/2018. (BRR)

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
AND DISMISSAL OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court for determination of the sufficiency of pro se Plaintiff
Wilson Egwuenu’s (“Egwuenu”) Amended Complaint. 1 Dkt. [75]. Also pending is Egwuenu’s
Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. [68], Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Default Judgment Dkt.
[70]. For the reasons explained below, Egwuenu’s pending motions are denied and the Amended
Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2017, Egwuenu, a citizen of Polk County, Iowa, filed a 46 page, single spaced
Complaint consisting of 255 paragraphs, against Defendants the 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. Dkt. [1]. On November 30, 2017, this Court granted

1

Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ... authorizes courts to
dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have the power to do so even in the
absence of this statutory provision.”); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir.
2000) (district courts have inherent authority to dismiss frivolous fee-paid actions).

Motions to Dismiss filed by Dr. Joe Feldman, Dkt. [29], Walter Bettinger, Dkt. [34], and Hon.
Megan Brennan, Dkt. [65] (Dkt. [67]). As required, the dismissals were without prejudice because
it may have been possible that Egwuenu might have a viable claim under some set of facts that
had not been sufficiently alleged in his pro se Complaint. The Court granted Egwuenu leave to
replead by filing an amended complaint. However, he was instructed that the amended complaint
must be free of the deficiencies which warranted dismissal of the original complaint. In particular,
Egwuenu was instructed that he must bring unrelated claims in separate lawsuits against the proper
party and each complaint must state a short and plain statement of the facts; the claims must be
plausible, and he was further instructed that only related claims of action may be filed in an
amended complaint under this case number. Dkt. [67] at 6.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Appointment of Counsel
On December 14, 2017, Egwuenu filed a third request for appointment of counsel, stating

that “due process requires that the court appoint him a counsel.” Dkt. [68] at 9. On prior occasions,
courts in this district have informed Egwuenu that the court has no authority to “appoint” counsel
in a civil proceeding. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts are empowered only to “request”
counsel. Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 300 (1989). “When confronted
with a request . . . for pro bono counsel, the district court is to make the following inquiries: (1)
has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded
from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to
litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-655 (7th Cir. 2007). The court must deny
“out of hand” a request for counsel made without a showing of such effort. Farmer v. Haas, 990
F.2d 319 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 438 (1993).

2

In his motion, Egwuenu provides no information regarding indigency or of reasonable
efforts that he has made on his own to secure representation. Regarding the second inquiry, the
court’s task is to analyze the plaintiff’s abilities as related to “the tasks that normally attend
litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and
trial.” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d at 654-55. The Court notes that Egwuenu is a frequent 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. The Court finds, in this
case and at present, that the claims asserted by Egwuenu are not of sufficient complexity or merit
as to surpass his ability to properly develop and present them. He is an experienced litigator, and
appears to be literate, to have access to research and writing materials, and to have an
understanding of the court’s processes.
The Court determines that Egwuenu has not shown that he is indigent, nor has he shown a
reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and considering
the claims, he appears to be competent to litigate this action himself. Accordingly, the third motion
for appointment of counsel, Dkt. [68], is denied.
B.

The Amended Complaint
On March 30, 2018, Egwuenu filed an Amended Complaint, which he titled Plaintiff’s

First Amended Petition. Dkt. [75]. Unfortunately, the Amended Complaint cures none of the
deficiencies described in the original Complaint and is legally insufficient. As an initial matter,
the Court notes that the Amended Complaint does not name or make allegations concerning
defendants Walter Bettinger and Joe Feldman; accordingly dismissal as to these two defendants
is now with prejudice.

3

The Amended Complaint is 55 pages long, 326 paragraphs and adds new defendants, St.
Vincent Hospital and Charles Schwab & Co. The Amended Complaint brings a series of unrelated
claims and does not describe any connection that may exist between Brennan, the United States
Post Master General, who is sued in her individual capacity, St. Vincent Hospital, and Charles
Schwab & Co. It is packed with irrelevant facts and details unnecessary to establish a valid claim
for relief and makes it difficult to locate the specific actions and allegations giving rise to liability.
Egwuenu states “the primary cause of this action is a widespread and prolonged RICO conspiracy”
from 1996 to the present, to defraud him, impede his meaningful access to court, inflict severe and
sustained economic and emotional hardships on him with the intent to make him homeless,
discourage him from seeking meaningful access in order to cover up their wrongdoing and retain
his property. (See Dkt. [75].) As far as the Court can discern, the claims concerning the named
defendants are as follows:
He alleges in a conclusory statement, that under her watch as the United States Post
Master, Brennen maintained long standing policies, customs, and practices of
mercilessly abusing and discriminating against him and she conspired to not deliver
legal documents he mailed to the court, or legal documents the courts mailed to
him.
He alleges that Schwab has been his stockbroker agency since the 1980s. Schwab
agents/employees fraudulently enrolled in a Security Loan Program in his name
and received all the appreciation from one of the stocks. When he found out about
the fraud Schwab agents froze his accounts and marked them abandoned in order
to cover their conspiracy; he was not allowed to trade on his accounts and lost
money because of their conspiracy.
He worked for St, Vincent Indianapolis as a registered nurse from 2008 to 2010.
He alleges that St. Vincent and its agent, Ms. Schultz, and other employees
conspired in an effort to have him fired. Schultz forced him to sign documents
stating the he was not meeting his job requirements, which he refused to sign.
While he was on vacation, Schultz had all the nurses on his unit write a statement
about what he had done wrong since being employed, accused him of poor job
performance, insubordination, and making poor choices on behalf of patients;
eventually he was terminated.

4

Egwuenu is asking for declaratory and injunctive relief; a court appointed counsel;
reinstatement; economic damages including front pay, back pay, and lost benefits;
compensatory damages including future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses,
emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish; liquidated damages;
punitive damages; lost interest on wages and damages including pre- and postjudgment and upward adjustment for inflation; and an order making defendants pay
his litigation costs and expenses, and an order enjoining defendants from engaging
in the unlawful actions stated in his complaint.
Throughout the 55 single-spaced pages of the Amended Complaint, Egwuenu
describes in an unintelligible manner numerous unrelated wrongs that he has
suffered since 1996 regarding incidents such as a used car dealers interference with
the title to his vehicle, misconduct by a judge in Texas, and stalking, sabotage and
exploitation by numerous individuals not named as parties in the amended
complaint. He also alleges that the sudden deaths of Judges Chambers (on
1/24/2000) and McKinney (on 9/20/17) may have been a part of the conspiracy.
A complaint that is wholly insubstantial does not invoke the district court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); African-American
Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.2006). Egwuenu’s Amended 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).
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.”
In addition, when it becomes clear that a suit…is irrational or delusional, the district court
is required to dismiss it, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I); Ezike v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.,
5

2009 WL 247838, 3 (7th Cir. 2009). Although Egwuenu may be convinced that these unrelated
parties are involved in a conspiracy and are committing the alleged atrocities against him, he does
not support the claims that he asserts. The Court notes that Egwuenu’s prior cases with similar
claims filed in this district have thrice been dismissed for similar reasons 2. The Court determines
that the claims in the Amended Complaint are frivolous, “which is to say a claim that no reasonable
person could suppose to have any merit”. See Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000), and
Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). The Amended
Complaint fails to contain legally viable claims over which this Court could exercise subject matter
jurisdiction and must be dismissed.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Egwuenu’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. [68], is
DENIED. Because Egwuenu has failed to cure the defects of his original Complaint after being
provided notice of them and ample opportunity to do so, the Amended Complaint. Dkt. [75], is
DISMISSED, without prejudice. Regarding the remaining motion: Egwuenu’s Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Default Judgment, Dkt. [70], is DENIED as moot. This action is
terminated.
Final judgment will be entered in a separate order.
SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/5/2018

2
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 the 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 the 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).

6

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

7