Pagels v. Bay County FL et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/19/2016 DENYING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee and DISMISSING 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-1214-PP
v.
BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 3) AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On September 19, 2016, this court entered an order barring the plaintiff
from filing any documents in this court for a period of two years, unless the
documents relate to a criminal matter in which the plaintiff is a defendant. The
plaintiff, representing himself, had filed numerous frivolous complaints in this
court, did not heed the court’s warning that further frivolous filings would
provide grounds for the court to prevent him from filing additional documents
in this district, and the court determined that such a sanction was necessary
to address the plaintiff’s vexatious litigation practices. Pagels v. City of
Waukesha Police Dept., No. 16-cv-1072, Order, Sept. 19, 2016 (E.D. Wis.).
Eleven days before the court entered that order, the plaintiff filed the
complaint in this case, along with a motion asking the court to allow him to
proceed without paying the filing fees. After the plaintiff refused to consent to
the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the case was reassigned to this court.

1

Because the court had not yet entered its order barring the plaintiff from filing
additional documents when the plaintiff filed this action, that order does not
bar the complaint in this case. The court cannot allow this case to proceed,
however, because the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.
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
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. The court has reviewed
the allegations in the complaint and has determined that there is no relief that
the court can provide to the plaintiff. The facts in the plaintiff’s complaint do
not state a claim for relief against any of the entities or individuals named in
the complaint.
For the reasons stated above, 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. 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.
Further, the court reiterates that its September 19, 2016 order remains

2

effective and, until it expires, the Clerk’s Office will return unfiled any
additional documents the plaintiff attempts to file in a civil case in this court.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of December, 2016.

3