Sandles v. McQuade et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss; granting 5 Motion to Dismiss; denying 6 Motion to Remand and Ordering Plaintiff to pay $500 for violating previous orders entered by Judges Battani, Duggan and Cox within 30 days of this Order.. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN ERIC SANDLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-10663
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

BARBARA MCQUADE, LYNN DODGE,
JAN GEHT, WILLIAM L. WOODWARD,
PATRICIA GADEKE, SARAH COHEN,
RITA CHASTANG, STEPHEN MURPHY,
GEORGE C. STEEH, AVERN COHN,
KARL S. FORESTER, ALBERT MCKEAGUE,
WILLIAM M. CONLEY, PATRICK J. DUGGAN,
SEAN COX and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on April 9, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [dkt 3, 5], and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand [dkt 6]. The Motion to Remand has been fully briefed. Plaintiff has not responded
to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and the time period for him to do so has lapsed. The Court finds
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R.
7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions be resolved on the briefs submitted, without oral
argument. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or around January 30, 2013, Plaintiff John Eric Sandles filed this action in Wayne County
Circuit Court, alleging that Defendants—including the various judges, attorneys, and prosecutors
involved in his previous criminal and civil complaints—are part of a RICO conspiracy targeting
Plaintiff. On February 15, 2013, Defendants removed the case to this Court.
Plaintiff has a lengthy history of attempting to litigate in federal court, having filed more than
80 federal cases. Many of those cases—if not all of them—arise from prior convictions in this District
or the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the revocation of his supervised release, and/or the conditions of
his confinement, specifically the failure to receive psychiatric treatment and/or evaluation. See Dkt. 3,
ex. 4. Three Judges in this District have entered Orders precluding Plaintiff from filing additional suits
before obtaining leave:
A. On January 28, 2008, Judge Battani entered an order adopting a Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, enjoining Plaintiff from filing future actions without first
obtaining leave of the court. See Dkt. 3, ex. 3.
B. After Judge Battani issued her Order enjoining the Plaintiff from filing future actions
without seeking leave of the Court, Plaintiff filed two additional suits in the Wayne
County Circuit Court. Both cases were removed to this Court and assigned to Judge
Duggan. Judge Duggan dismissed the cases for violating Judge Battani’s Order,
enjoined Plaintiff from filing any future actions without first seeking leave of the court,
and held that Plaintiff shall be subject to sanctions in the amount of $250 for each
violation of Judge Battani’s Order or for each filing of a frivolous lawsuit. See Dkt. 5,
ex. 3–4.
C. Plaintiff filed another suit on June 5, 2012, in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The
case was removed to this Court on June 27, 2012 and was assigned to Judge Sean Cox.
On January 22, 2013, Judge Cox dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, and
sanctioned Plaintiff $250. Judge Cox also ordered that, should Plaintiff file any further
actions without the Court’s leave, the Court will sanction Plaintiff in the amount of
$500 plus all of Defendants costs and attorneys fees. See Dkt. 5, ex. 5.
III. LEGAL STANDARD

2 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to
delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
IV. ANALYSIS
Despite the warnings of three United States District Court Judges, Plaintiff has once again filed
suit without seeking leave. As such, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
The Court agrees. By filing the instant case without the Court’s leave, Plaintiff violated the Orders
entered by Judge Battani, Judge Duggan, and Judge Cox. See Dkt. 5, ex.’s 1–4. As Judge Duggan
stated, “This, alone, justifies the Court’s dismissal of his lawsuit.” See Dkt. 5, ex. 3 at 3. Moreover,
Plaintiff appears to raise the same claims that he did in his previous complaints, and for the same
reasons, Plaintiff’s instant complaint is frivolous. For these reasons, the Court shall grant Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss.
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [dkt 3, 5] are
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [dkt 6] is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within 30 days of entry of this Order, pay
$500 for violating previous Orders entered by Judges Battani, Duggan, and Cox.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be held in contempt of court should he fail to
make timely payment of the $500 sanction within 30 days of entry of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay Defendants’ costs and attorneys fees
associated with this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is enjoined from filing subsequent actions without
seeking and obtaining the Court’s leave.

3 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, hereafter, sanctions in the amount of $750 shall be imposed
on Plaintiff for each violation of this Order or for each filing of a frivolous, in forma pauperis lawsuit.
Date: April 9, 2013
s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4