Kobishop, Jerome v. Marinette County Sheriff's Dept. et al
Filing
4
ORDER denying Jerome Kobishop leave to proceed in case nos. 13-cv-357-bbc, 13-cv-358-bbc, 13-cv-360-bbc, 13-cv-361-bbc, 13-cv-362-bbc and 13-cv-363-bbc, DISMISSING these cases for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be gra nted in this court. Plaintiff's complaints in case nos. 13-cv-356-bbc and 13-cv-359-bbc are DISMISSED for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until August 12, 2013 to submit amended complaints in these cases. If plaintiff fails to submit amended complaints by August 12, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment for defendants and close those cases. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/24/2013. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-356-bbc
MARINETTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. et al,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-357-bbc
LORI KOBISHOP,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-358-bbc
LORI KOBISHOP,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-359-bbc
MIKE HAUPT and CHAD HOUSTON,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-360-bbc
HARRY WHITE and DAVID MIRON,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-361-bbc
LORI KOBISHOP,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-362-bbc
2
LORI KOBISHOP,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JEROME W. KOBISHOP,
Plaintiff,
OPINION and ORDER
v.
13-cv-363-bbc
MIKE PERRY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Jerome Kobishop has submitted eight proposed complaints to this court at
once. Because plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of costs under the in forma
pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, his complaints must be dismissed if they are legally
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or ask for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). In addressing any pro se litigant's complaint, the court must read the
allegations of the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).
After considering the complaints filed by plaintiff, I will give him a chance to submit
amended complaints in case nos. 13-cv-356-bbc and 13-cv-359-bbc that more fully detail his
claims. I will dismiss his other six cases for failure to state claims upon which relief may be
granted in this court.
Plaintiff raises the following allegations in each of his respective cases.
3
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
•
13-cv-356-bbc: Various defendants, including the Marinette County
Sheriff’s Department and staff at the Mendota Mental Health
Institute, have harassed, discriminated against, threatened and defamed
plaintiff.
•
13-cv-357-bbc: Defendant Lori Kobishop, plaintiff’s wife and a nurse
at a clinic where plaintiff was a patient, revealed personal medical
information about plaintiff, in violation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act( HIPPA).
•
13-cv-358-bbc: Plaintiff tripped and fell down steps that should have
been maintained by defendant Lori Kobishop.
•
13-cv-359-bbc: Plaintiff was treated cruelly by defendant “jailors” Mike
Haupt and Chad Houston while plaintiff was detained by the
Marinette County Sheriff’s Department.
•
13-cv-360-bbc: Defendant Judge Harry White violated plaintiff’s rights
by ordering a competency examination, and Judge David Miron had a
conflict of interest because he had a relationship with plaintiff’s wife
and his family was close friends with her family.
•
13-cv-361-bbc: Defendant Lori Kobishop filed a false police report
stating that plaintiff had broken a restraining order, resulting in
plaintiff’s arrest. This caused plaintiff great emotional distress and
ultimately physical harm when he was mistreated in prison.
•
13-cv-362-bbc: Defendant Lori Kobishop caused plaintiff emotional
pain and suffering from lack of support during their marriage. She also
damaged plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff was forced to leave his job
because of the stress.
•
13-cv-363-bbc: Defendant Mike Perry, Lori Kobishop’s divorce
attorney, has “kept up the fight over nothing” and has misrepresented
Wisconsin law in the proceedings, leading to emotional distress for
plaintiff while unjustifiably enriching Perry.
4
OPINION
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. This
court has subject matter jurisdiction only over actions concerning federal questions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in cases
in which there is diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The facts that plaintiff alleges
in most of his complaints do not raise claims qualifying under either of these standards, so
those cases will be dismissed.
In particular, his claims against his wife (or ex-wife; it is unclear from plaintiff’s filings
whether his divorce proceedings are final) and his wife’s attorney are at best, state law claims
or issues that belong in his divorce proceedings.
Although there is no question that
plaintiff’s divorce appears to be taking a very real and understandable emotional toll on him,
nothing in his pleadings suggests that diversity jurisdiction might be present in any of his
cases. Therefore, he cannot bring those claims in this court. In addition, he is barred from
bringing a claim under federal HIPAA law against Lori Kobishop because HIPAA does not
create a private cause of action or an enforceable right for purposes of a federal lawsuit.
Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533
(9th Cir. 2010).
As to the claims against other defendants, plaintiff cannot bring federal claims
against state court judges. The doctrine of judicial immunity establishes the absolute
immunity of judges from liability for their judicial acts, even when they act maliciously or
corruptly. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991). This immunity is not for the protection or
5
benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, which has an
interest in a judiciary free to exercise its function without fear of harassment by unsatisfied
litigants. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967); see also Forrester v. White, 484 U.S.
219, 225 (1988) (observing that judicial immunity discourages inappropriate collateral
attacks and protects judicial independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions
prosecuted by disgruntled litigants) (citing Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 348 80 U.S. 335
(1872)).
That leaves cases nos. 13-cv-356-bbc and 13-cv-359-bbc, in which plaintiff alleges
that Marinette County Sheriff’s Department and Mendota Mental Health Institute staff
have harassed him, “treated him cruelly” and discriminated against him. These types of
claims may be heard in this court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Generally, proving liability
under § 1983 requires the plaintiff to prove both that the defendant acted under color of
state law and violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff. Burrell v. City of Mattoon, 378
F.3d 642, 647 (7th Cir. 2004).) However, I cannot tell from plaintiff’s allegations in these
cases what his actual claims are. The allegations are extremely vague, so much so that his
pleadings violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The primary purpose of this rule is
rooted in fair notice. A complaint “must be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a
court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.”
Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1994)
6
(citations omitted). Plaintiff’s vague allegations do not give the defendants named in these
cases adequate notice of what he contends they did to violate his rights. However, because
plaintiff may be able to correct the pleading problems, he will be given an opportunity to file
an amended complaint in each case to correct the Rule 8 problem. Plaintiff should draft
each amended complaint as if he were telling a story to people who know nothing about his
situation. This means that someone reading the complaint should be able to answer the
following questions:
• What are the facts that form the basis for plaintiff’s claims?
• What actions did each defendant take that violated plaintiff’s rights?
• What rights does plaintiff believe were violated?
• What relief does plaintiff want the court to provide?
Should plaintiff fail to submit amended complaints by the deadline set below, I will direct
the clerk of court to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close the cases.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Jerome Kobishop is DENIED leave to proceed in case nos. 13-cv-357bbc, 13-cv-358-bbc, 13-cv-360-bbc, 13-cv-361-bbc, 13-cv-362-bbc and13-cv-363-bbc, and
these cases are DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted in this court.
2.
Plaintiff’s complaints in case nos. 13-cv-356-bbc and 13-cv-359-bbc are
7
DISMISSED for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until August 12, 2013 to
submit amended complaints in these cases. If plaintiff fails to submit amended complaints
by August 12, I will direct the clerk of court to enter judgment for defendants and close
those cases.
Entered this 24th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?