Pagels v. Unknown et al

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/25/2016 DENYING 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee and DISMISSING 1 Complaint. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to Plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ERNEST J PAGELS, JR,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-CV-0831-PP
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 1) AND
DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 3)

On June 29, 2016, plaintiff Ernest Pagels filed a complaint against
unknown defendants. Dkt. No. 1. On July 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Dkt. No. 3, a letter
naming individuals he does not wish to sue, Dkt. No. 4, and several personal
documents, Dkt. No. 5. In his complaint, the plaintiff describes his mental
health and trust issues, and asks the court to stop the harassment he states
that he receives when police officers and police dispatchers in Waukesha and
Milwaukee counties hang up on his calls for help. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The plaintiff
does not identify any particular officers but does provide a list of people that he
does not want to sue. Dkt. No. 4.
If a court finds that the allegations in a complaint have “no possibility of
the court having authority to provide relief to the plaintiff,” then the case does
not belong in federal court. Carter v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d
1

806, 807 (7th Cir. 2015)(citations omitted). In other words, a finding that the
complaint, on its face, is frivolous or nonjusticiable is enough to denote that
the case does not invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. at 808.
There is no relief that this court can provide to the plaintiff. Even if the
plaintiff’s allegations were true, the court cannot prevent unknown officers and
dispatchers from hanging up the phone when he calls. The complaint does not
provide enough factual information (including the real names of any
defendants) to state a claim over which this court can exercise jurisdiction.
It appears that the plaintiff may have realized this fact, because on July
21, 2016, he filed a letter, telling the court that he wanted to dismiss all of the
lawsuits he had before the court. Dkt. No. 6. The plaintiff has filed thirteen civil
rights cases and one miscellaneous case in this district (eleven since May
2014). The plaintiff represented himself in each of those cases. Almost all of
those cases were dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff, or were dismissed by
the court at the screening stage for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for
failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Because the plaintiff’s
repetitive frivolous filings are impeding the court’s ability to function efficiently,
the court will warn the plaintiff that the court may sanction him if he continues
to file complaints that do not belong in federal court.
For the reasons stated, the court ORDERS that this complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dkt. No. 1. The court DIRECTS the clerk to enter a judgment dismissing the
complaint.
2

The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee is DENIED as moot. Dkt. No. 3.
The court also WARNS the plaintiff that if he continues to file frivolous
complaints, the court MAY SANCTION the plaintiff by (1) denying in forma
pauperis status and the requiring the plaintiff to pay the filing fees associated
with any future complaint that he files in this court; (2) imposing a monetary
fine; and/or (3) barring the plaintiff from filing future cases or documents in
this district.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 25th day of July, 2016.

3