Kallembach, Darrel Lee v. City Of Platteville

Filing 3

ORDER denying permission to proceed for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 12/10/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------In re: DARREL KALLEMBACH as the Intervenor In terven tio n of Right as Claimant Argyle, Wisconsin L AR R Y KALLEMBACH as the witness, Plaintiffs. OR DER 0 9 - cv -7 1 1 - b b c

--------------------------------------------In re: LARRY KALLEMBACH as the Intervenor In terven tio n of my Fundamental Right as Claimant Platteville, Wisconsin DARREL KALLEMBACH as the witness i.e. W itn ess Protection Act 18 USCA Section 1512-1515 Plaintiff. OR DER 0 9 - c v -7 3 6 - b b c

--------------------------------------------Plaintiffs Larry and Darrel Kallembach have submitted pleadings in these two cases that appear to be notices of removal of cases from the Circuit Court for Grant County. The $3 50 filing fee has been paid in each case. However, plaintiffs cannot proceed with their cases because plaintiff Larry Kallembach is subject to an order entered September 15, 1998 in case no. 98-C-417-C that prohibits him from proceeding in any case until his pleadings hav e been screened to determine whether they have any merit. (From the caption of the

notice of removal in case no. 09-cv-711-bbc, it is not entirely clear whether Larry K allem bach is intended to be a party to the action. However, because he has signed the last page of the pleading I will consider that he wishes to be a party in that case.) Although Larry K a llem b ach appears to be a co-plaintiff in case no. 09-cv-711-bbc, the screening restriction in the September 15, 1998 order applies to any case in which Larry Kallembach is a plaintiff, r e g a r d less whether he is the sole plaintiff. Therefore, I will screen these cases pursuant to the September 15, 1998 order. P lain tiffs' pleadings are completely unintelligible. As I have told plaintiffs on many o ccasio n s, it is appropriate to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction w h ere, as here, the claims are "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of [th e United States Supreme Court], or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to in vo lve a federal controversy." Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S . Ct. 1003, 1010 (1998) (citing Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U .S. 661, 666 (1974)). Therefore, plaintiffs will be denied permission to proceed with these la w s u i t s.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiffs Larry and Darrel Kallembach are DENIED permission to proceed in cases 09-cv-711-bbc and 09-cv-736-bbc because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear their

cases. 2. The clerk of court is directed to close the files. E n tered this 10t h day of December, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge