Blaskowski v. Catholic Charities Mental Health Clinic et al
ORDER Adopt Report and Recommendation 14 Report and Recommendation. 1. Blaskowski's claims against Defendants are summarily dismissed. 2. Blaskowski is restricted from filing new cases in the District of Minnesota unless Blaskowski is represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court or receives prior written authorization from an appointed judicial officer of the federal court in the District of Minnesota. (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on December 29, 2016. (DML)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 16-2677 (JRT/LIB)
ADAM F. BLASKOWSKI
CATHOLIC CHARITIES MENTAL
HEALTH CLINIC, JUDITH ROBIN
LARSEN, MARY MATTLEN, JOHN
SCHERER, and VICKI LANDWEHR,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Adam Blaskowski, 42 Seventh Avenue North, Waite Park, MN 56387,
Plaintiff Adam F. Blaskowski initiated this action in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on April 6, 2016. (Compl., Apr. 6, 2016, Docket
No. 1.) The Complaint alleges Defendants Catholic Charities Mental Health Clinic,
Judith Robin Larsen, Mary Mattlen, Minnesota Chief District Court Judge John Scherer,
and Minnesota District Court Judge Vicki Landwehr (collectively, “Defendants”)
violated a series of statutes, including, but not limited to, the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (Compl. at
3.) United States District Court Judge Robert B. Kugler, finding venue improperly laid in
New Jersey, ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. (Order, Aug. 9, 2016, Docket No. 11.) Prior to transferring the
action, however, Judge Kugler granted Blaskowski’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (Order on Appl. to Proceed Without Payment of Fees, Apr. 7, 2016,
Docket No. 2.)
On August 30, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Blaskowski’s claims
against the Defendants as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (R&R at 4,
Aug. 30, 2016, Docket No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the
action because Blaskowski’s claims wholly lack factual support.
(Id. at 2-3.)
Magistrate Judge further recommended the Court restrict Blaskowski from filing new
cases in the District of Minnesota without representation by counsel or prior written
authorization from a judicial officer.
(Id. at 3.)
The Magistrate Judge based the
recommendation on Blaskowski’s history of filing numerous non-meritorious complaints
against various Defendants. (Id.)
Blaskowski filed timely objections to the R&R. (R&R Objs., Sept. 12, 2016,
Docket No. 15.)
Blaskowski’s objections, however, do not address the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendations. (See id.) Because the Court finds Blaskowski failed to allege
sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has a history of
filing similar frivolous claims, the Court will overrule Blaskowski’s objections, adopt the
R&R, and dismiss Blaskowski’s Complaint.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
After a magistrate judge files an R&R, a party may file “specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The objections should specify the portions of the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide
a basis for those objections.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp. 3d
1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (quoting Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL
4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008)). On a dispositive motion the Court reviews
“properly objected to” portions of an R&R de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “Objections which are not specific but merely repeat arguments
presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but
rather are reviewed for clear error.” Montgomery, 98 F. Supp. 3d at 1017.
Because Blaskowski did not provide specific objections to the R&R and, instead,
generally objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court reviews the
R&R for clear error.
DISMISSAL AS FRIVOLOUS
The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err when recommending the Court
summarily dismiss this matter as frivolous. “[Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] allows federal
courts to dismiss frivolous or malicious actions that are filed in forma pauperis.” Aziz v.
Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 1158 (8th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has held “a complaint,
containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
Here, Blaskowski listed a series of statutes Defendants allegedly violated with no
indication of the factual circumstances underlying the claims. Thus, even under the most
liberal construction, Blaskowski’s Complaint “lacks any arguable basis” on the facts
presented to the Court. Id. For this reason, the Court will adopt the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge and summarily dismiss this action as frivolous pursuant to
RESTRICTION ON FUTURE FILINGS
The Magistrate Jude also recommended the Court restrict Blaskowski from filing
new cases in the District of Minnesota without legal representation or prior written
authorization from a judicial officer. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Pro se litigants have a right of access to the courts. Miller v. Minnesota, No. 086555, 2009 WL 3062012, at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009). “That right, however, does
not ensure an unrestricted opportunity to file frivolous, malicious or abusive documents.”
Id. “Frivolous, bad faith claims consume a significant amount of judicial resources,
diverting the time and energy of the judiciary away from processing good faith claims.”
In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Colorado v. Carter, 678
F. Supp. 1481, 1486 (D. Colo. 1986)). Such “excessive litigation” imposes “unnecessary
burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court resources.” Id. The Court “has
authority to control and manage matters pending before it,” and “may, in its discretion,
place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for
obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process.” Id. at 129293.
Here, Blaskowski initiated numerous lawsuits in the District of Minnesota, or had
lawsuits transferred to the District of Minnesota, that completely lacked factual support.
See Blaskowski v. Minnesota, No. 16-1831 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2016); Blaskowski v.
Anderson Trucking, No.16-601 (D. Minn. May 25, 2016); Blaskowski v. Vicki Land Wehr
Constr., No. 16-447 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2016); Blaskowski v. Landwehr, No. 16-157 (D.
Minn. Mar. 15, 2016); Blaskowski v. Minnesota, No. 15-2733 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2015).
Further, Blaskowski filed many unmeritorious actions in other federal district
courts against Minnesota defendants. See, e.g., Blaskowski v. Electrolux Home Prods.,
No. 16-723 (D. Conn. June 24, 2016); Blaskowski v. No Named Defendants, No. 16-742
(D. Colo. May 6, 2016); Blaskowski v. Centra Care Clinic Hosp., No. 16-37 (D. Mont.
Apr. 28, 2016); In re Blaskowski, No. 16-2016 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2016); Blaskowski
v. Minnesota, 15-422 (W.D. Mich. July 20, 2015); Blaskowski v. Electrolux Home
Prods., Inc., No. 15-49 (D. Mont. July 13, 2015); Blaskowski v. Electrolux Home Prods.,
No. 15-3734 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2015).
Other claims Blaskowski filed were dismissed pre-service for failure to state a
claim. See Blaskowski v. Farmers Ins., No. 16-353 (D.R.I. July 11, 2016); Blaskowski v.
Farmers Ins., No. 15-3745 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2015). And another federal district court
declined to interpret several documents submitted by Blaskowski as a pleading. See In re
Adam Frank Blaskowski, No. 15-13 (W.D. La. Apr. 30, 2015). In all, Blaskowski filed
approximately twenty unmeritorious actions around the country, primarily against
In light of this extensive record of superfluous filing, the Court will find that it is
now necessary and appropriate to protect the District of Minnesota and its staff from
further submissions. Therefore, the Court will restrict Blaskowski from filing new cases
in the District of Minnesota without representation by counsel or prior written
authorization from a judicial officer.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Blaskowski’s objections [Docket No. 15] and ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated August 30, 2016 [Docket No. 14].
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Blaskowski’s claims against Defendants are SUMMARILY DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Blaskowski is restricted from filing new cases in the District of Minnesota
unless Blaskowski is represented by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court or
receives prior written authorization from an appointed judicial officer of the federal court
in the District of Minnesota.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: December 29, 2016
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?