Blanck, Walter v. Mil. FBI et al

Filing 162

ORDER that plaintiff Walter William Blanck's motion to reopen caseNos. 13-cv-193-jdp, 19-cv-176-jdp, and 19-cv-177-jdp, Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 8, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 01/10/2020. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WALTER WILLIAM BLANCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MILWAUKEE FBI, BUD HALL, GERE MAGNUSON,
ALBERT NESS, STEVEN BISKUPIC,
DANIEL S. CRAFT, CHARLES KOCH,
and DAVID KOCH,

19-cv-176-jdp

Defendants.1
Plaintiff Walter William Blanck is a prisoner at Green Bay Correctional Institution. In
April 2019, I dismissed this lawsuit as frivolous; Blanck alleged that he was “chemically
opened” by the FBI and subjected to a decades-long conspiracy to harm him orchestrated by
members of the federal and state governments and people associated with the Republican
Party.
Blanck has responded to that dismissal with two filings that I will consider together as
one motion. Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 8. Mostly these documents reiterate the type of conspiracy
allegations that this court has repeatedly called frivolous. Blanck does not explicitly ask to
reopen this case (19-cv-176-jdp), but even construing his filings as such a motion, I will deny
it because nothing in Blanck’s submissions gives me reason to reconsider the dismissal.

1

Blanck did not caption his submissions that are the subject of this order. He styles them as
responses to my order in case No. 19-cv-176-jdp, so I have directed the clerk of court to caption
them in the ’176 case. The clerk should docket this order in each of the cases discussed in the
order.

Blanck also explicitly states that he wants to reopen a recent civil-rights case that he
settled in August 2018 with the help of court-recruited counsel, see Blanck v. Sumnicht, No. 13cv-193-jdp (W.D. Wis.), and reopen his recently dismissed petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Blanck v. Pollard, No. 19-cv-177-jdp (W.D. Wis.). He doesn’t explain why he wants to reopen
the habeas case, nor does he address the reason I dismissed that case: he cannot file a second
or successive application for habeas relief in the district court unless he first seeks and obtains
an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the
application. See Dkt. 5 in the ’177 case, at 2–3. So I will deny his motion to reopen the habeas
case.
As for the ’193 civil-rights case, Blanck suggests that he was dissatisfied by with the
representation he received and would like new counsel, and that he is currently is in danger
because prison officials are mistreating his heart condition by failing to provide him with
medication and keeping his cell too hot. But Blanck doesn’t explain why he thinks that
anything his counsel did gives him good cause to reopen a case that has already been settled.
And his allegations about current mistreatment do not belong in an already closed lawsuit; they
are not reason to reopen the ’193 case. So I will deny his motion to reopen his civil-rights case.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Walter William Blanck’s motion to reopen case
Nos. 13-cv-193-jdp, 19-cv-176-jdp, and 19-cv-177-jdp, Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 8, is DENIED.
Entered January 10, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3