Froemming v. City of West Allis et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 2/6/2024. Plaintiff shall PAY to the Clerk of Court sanctions in the total accrued amount of $8,768.18. Plaintiff shall PAY to Defendants attorney's fees in the amount of $11,350.00 and costs in the amount of $552.20 as previously ordered. See Order. (cc: all counsel and Plaintiff)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM C. FROEMMING,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER LETE CARLSON, OFFICER
RYAN STUETTGEN, and SERGEANT
WAYNE TREEP,

Case No. 19-CV-996-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.

In February 2023, a jury convened in this matter returned a verdict
for Defendants Officer Lete Carlson, Officer Ryan Stuettgen, and Sergeant
Wayne Treep (“Defendants”). ECF No. 61. In June 2023, the Court granted
in part Defendants’ second motion for sanctions against Plaintiff William
C. Froemming (“Plaintiff”). ECF Nos. 67, 73. As a sanction, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to pay to the Clerk of Court the full cost of empaneling the
jury for trial in this matter, which amounted to $1,118.18. ECF No. 73 at 41.
The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendants’ “reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs associated with responding to Plaintiff’s motion for mistrial”
and dismissed the action with prejudice and with costs for Defendants. Id.
at 41–42. The Court additionally ordered that “should Plaintiff elect to file
an appeal in this matter, Plaintiff is ordered to post a bond or the cash
equivalent for the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by defense
counsel in responding to Plaintiff’s motion for mistrial, . . . ; the cost of
having empaneled the jury; and Defendants’ costs in this action as may be
taxed by the Clerk of the Court.” Id. at 42.

Plaintiff paid no portion of these sums but proceeded to file a notice
of appeal. ECF No. 79. Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved the Court to
enforce its order requiring the posting of a bond as a condition of appeal.
ECF No. 83. In August 2023, the Court granted that motion, reducing
Defendants’ requested fees and ordering Plaintiff to post a bond or the cash
equivalent in the total amount of $13,020.38. ECF No. 87 at 9–10 ($11,350.00
in attorneys’ fees, $552.20 in costs, and $1,118.18 as the cost of empaneling
the jury). The Court warned that “[f]ailure to [post such bond] w[ould]
result in . . . conveyance of that failure to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals for its consideration.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff again failed to post any
portion of that bond amount, so the Court made good on its warning and
conveyed such failure to the Seventh Circuit. See Froemming v. City of West
Allis et al., No. 23-2380 (7th Cir. 2023), ECF No. 8.1
In September 2023, Defendants filed a motion for a finding of civil
contempt against Plaintiff. ECF No. 88. In October 2023, the Court granted
the motion. ECF No. 90. As relief, the Court imposed the following sanction:
in addition to the $13,020.38 bond that Plaintiff remains
obligated to post as a condition of his appeal, as a further
sanction for his non-compliance, Plaintiff is also hereby
ordered to pay to the Clerk of Court the sum of $50 for each
day of noncompliance with the Court’s August 24, 2023
deadline for posting a bond. ECF No. 87 at 10 (“Plaintiff . . .
shall POST as a bond . . . the total sum of $13,020.38 as a
condition to his appeal . . . on or before August 24, 2023.”).
This sanction shall operate retroactive to August 24, 2023, and
shall accrue and remain in effect as long as his appeal remains
Plaintiff’s misconduct continued beyond this Court into his appeal before
the Seventh Circuit. On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed before the Seventh Circuit
a brief containing over a dozen nonexistent citations with unsupported assertions
and nonexistent quotations. Froemming v. City of West Allis et al., No. 23-2380 (7th
Cir. 2023), ECF No. 25 at 5.
1

Page 2 of 4

pending, or until such time as the bond requirement is fully
satisfied.
Id. at 5.
On January 24, 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the jury’s verdict and the judgment thereon. William Froemming v. City of
West Allis, et al., No. 23-2380, ECF No. 25 at 6. (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024). The
Seventh Circuit, on Defendants’ motion, also imposed a $5,000 sanction on
Plaintiff, as well as a filing bar. Id. at 5–6. The court described Plaintiff’s
behavior in this matter as constituting a “flagrant abuse of the judicial
process.” Id. at 5.
Now that Plaintiff’s frivolous appeal has been resolved, that leaves
the Court to calculate the total sanction accrued from August 24, 2023 to
January 24, 2024. See ECF No. 90 at 5, 6. One hundred and fifty-three (153)
days passed during that period, amounting to a sum of $7,650.
For clarity, the Court enumerates the amounts Plaintiff now owes,
and to whom: Plaintiff owes the Clerk of Court $1,118.18 for the cost of
empaneling the jury in his case, plus the $7,650 sanction imposed herein,
for a total of $8,768.18 owed to the Clerk of Court; he also owes to
Defendants reasonable attorney’s fees assessed against him in the amount
of $11,350.00, plus $552.20 in costs as taxed by the Clerk of Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff William C. Froemming shall pay to
the Clerk of Court sanctions in the total accrued amount of $8,768.18; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff William C. Froemming
shall pay to Defendants attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,350.00 and
costs in the amount of $552.20 as previously ordered.

Page 3 of 4

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of February, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4