Porter, Christine v. United States of America et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying plaintiff's motions to reopen and for my recusal. If plaintiff files any new submissions, the clerk of court is directed to send themdirectly to chambers for review. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/20/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
12-cv-119-bbc

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
SEROQUEL ASTRAZENECAUS,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
12-cv-191-bbc

IVAX PHARMACEUTICAL,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
12-cv-224-bbc

WALGREENS CO. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICAL,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ADVIAR, BOEHRINGER INGEL HEIM,
FLOVENT, SINGULAIR MSD,
WARRICK BACHERING, XOPENX,
N.H. BOARD MEDICAL PRACTICE and
VT. MEDICAL BOARD PRACTICE,

12-cv-276-bbc

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JUDGE CRABB and FLOWVENT,

12-cv-277-bbc

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

12-cv-278-bbc

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-308-bbc
WISCONSIN STATE MEDICAL BOARD,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-309-bbc
JAMES GOODSETT, PAUL HICKS,
PHILIP KURLEY, GUPTA PANKHA,
ROD PETERSON, DR. ROWE,
2

JAMES SEHLOFF and L. WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-310-bbc
FLOWVENT,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-315-bbc
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-316-bbc
JUDGE URBAN,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINE PORTER,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
12-cv-317-bbc
DR. JANJOUR, DR. KINCK,
DR. L. WILLIAMS, DR. WILK and
DR. BEDEKAR,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In a May 9, 2012 order, I dismissed each of the above-captioned cases filed by
plaintiff Christine Porter because none stated a claim upon which relief could be granted in
federal court. Also, to avoid further waste of judicial resources, I directed the clerk of court

3

to route directly to chambers without docketing any further pleadings plaintiff files in this
court in order to verify whether they are comprehensible and raise claims that could be heard
in this court. Plaintiff responded by filing a borderline unintelligible motion to reopen the
case, which I denied in a June 11, 2012 order.
Now plaintiff has filed another motion to reopen, arguing that “the IRS is involved.”
Plaintiff does not explain what the Internal Revenue Service has to do with any of her cases,
or why this would rectify the substantial flaws in her complaints. Plaintiff requests also that
“judges that were involved” recuse themselves from her cases. However, plaintiff does not
explain why I should step aside, and my adverse rulings in these cases are not evidence of
bias necessitating recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Golant v.
Levy, 239 F.3d 931, 938 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff’s motions to
reopen the case and for my recusal.
After a couple of rounds of motions from plaintiff, it is clear that the earlier sanctions
were not broad enough to keep plaintiff from continuing to file underdeveloped submissions
that consume court resources. Accordingly, I will now direct the clerk of court to route
directly to chambers without docketing any further submissions plaintiff files in this court.
If a future submission is understandable and raises a fully developed argument that this court
has not already rejected in plaintiff’s previous filings, I will return it to the clerk's office with
instructions to docket it as appropriate. If the submission suffers from the same problems
as her other numerous recent filings, the document will be placed in a miscellaneous file and
given no further consideration.

4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Christine Porter’s motions to reopen the above-captioned cases and for
my recusal are DENIED.
2. If plaintiff files any new submissions, the clerk of court is directed to send them
directly to chambers for review, as explained above.
Entered this 20th day of June, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

5