Lammers v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 6/26/2023 DENYING 66 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, to Appoint Counsel, and for Miscellaneous Relief. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Plaintiff)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES D. LAMMERS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 87-CV-533-JPS

v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,

ORDER

Defendant.
Plaintiff James D. Lammers1 (“Plaintiff”) has a “long history of
frivolous litigation” and, until a few weeks ago, was subject to a filing bar
in all district courts in the Seventh Circuit. Lammers v. Ellerd, 202 F.3d 273,
1999 WL 1075323, *1 (7th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision). The filing
bar was lifted in light of Plaintiff’s payment of all the sanctions and filing
fees he had incurred across his many lawsuits. See Lammers v. Ellerd, No. 983634 (7th Cir. May 26, 2023), ECF No. 15. In its order lifting the filing bar,
the Seventh Circuit warned Plaintiff that “additional frivolous filings will
lead to the reinstatement of a filing bar and possible monetary sanctions.”
Id.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the above-captioned
case, and for “appointment of counsel and to allow a record [to be] made of
the felony operations by the State, State Farm, and related attorneys and
firms including but not limited to attorney then Borowski and firm now
claiming right as judge of state in coverup by him since 2017 appointment
by then Governor Walker.” ECF No. 66. As its title suggests, the motion is
Plaintiff indicates that he is “formerly known” by this name and now goes
by James D. Kurtz. ECF No. 66 at 1.
1

Case 2:87-cv-00533-JPS Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 3 Document 67

not intelligible. But the Court gleans that Plaintiff seeks to reopen this
case—which he filed thirty-six years ago—on the basis that witnesses
and/or participants in this action lied to or made misrepresentations to this
Court, and similarly that witnesses and/or participants in the Wisconsin
prosecutions against him lied to or made misrepresentations to the courts
that heard those cases. See generally id.
Aside from being barely comprehensible, the motion is both
untimely and baseless; accordingly, it will be denied. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) “allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and
request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances
including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). In addition to these grounds, a party may
move for relief on the basis that judgment is void, satisfied, or vacated, or
for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)–(6). “A
motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for
reasons

(1)

[mistake],

(2)

[newly

discovered

evidence],

and

(3) [misrepresentation,] no more than a year after the entry of the judgment
or order . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).
Construing Plaintiff’s motion as alleging misrepresentation and thus
proceeding under Rule 60(b)(3), the motion is untimely. The one-year
deadline applicable to such motions has long since passed, and the Court is
not at liberty to extend the deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“A court must not
extend the time to act under Rule[] . . . 60(b).”). None of the rule’s other
enumerated grounds for relief apply here. Rule 60(b)(6)’s catchall
provision, which is not subject to the one-year constraint, still requires a
showing that Rule 60(b)(1)–(5) do not apply and that “extraordinary
circumstances” justify reopening. Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1861
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:87-cv-00533-JPS Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 3 Document 67

(2022) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s incoherent ramblings do not amount to
extraordinary circumstances. He has offered no actual evidence of
misrepresentations to this Court in this case, only his own suspicions. To
the extent his motion relies on alleged misrepresentations to the Wisconsin
state courts in criminal prosecutions, those occurrences are irrelevant and,
in any event, beyond the power of this Court to redress in this action. See
Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding
that lower federal courts are prohibited from presiding “over claims
seeking review of state court judgments . . . no matter how erroneous or
unconstitutional the state court judgment may be”).
Simply because Plaintiff is no longer subject to a filing bar and may
again submit filings in district courts in the Seventh Circuit does not mean
he should do so. Here, Plaintiff has given the Court no reason to grant his
motion, and instead has provided a reminder of why a filing bar was
imposed in the first place. Plaintiff is put on notice that any further filings
in this case will lead the Court to follow through on the Seventh Circuit’s
warning that the filing bar may be reinstated and/or monetary sanctions
may be imposed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff James D. Lammers’s motion to reopen
this case, for appointment or counsel, and for other miscellaneous relief,
ECF No. 66, be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of June, 2023.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Case 2:87-cv-00533-JPS Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 3 Document 67