Hermann, Timothy v. State of Wisconsin et al

Filing 8

ORDER that this case is STAYED, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending final resolution of plaintiff Timothy Louis Hermann's state criminal proceedings. The clerk of court is directed to administratively close this case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/22/2016. (jef),(ps)

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

TIMOTHY LOUIS HERMANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, SCOTT WALKER,
BRAD SCHIMEL, DOUG LAFOLLETTE,
ALL LICENSED MEMBERS AND ASSISTANTS OF
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND STATE
BAR OF WISCONSIN, ALL THE JUDGES - ROD M.
SMELTZER, JAMES A. PETERSON AND THEIR
ASSISTANTS, STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT
COURT, DUNN COUNTY, ALL THE OFFICERS
AND ASSISTANTS OF THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT
ATTORNEY COUNTY OF DUNN, DUNN COUNTY,
DENNIS P. SMITH, ALL DEPUTIES IN THE DUNN
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
and CITY OF MENOMINEE,

OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-191-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Timothy Louis Hermann, a resident of Wheeler, Wisconsin, has initiated this
lawsuit with a document titled “Affidavit of Obligation Commercial Lien,” Dkt. 1, which I
will construe as a civil complaint for damages. Although the document does not have a
caption, he lists various state law enforcement and judicial officials as “Lien Debtors,” id. at
11, whom I will consider as the defendants in this case. The court has already concluded that
plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis in this case without prepayment of any portion of the
$350 filing fee.
The next step is for the court to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
asks for monetary damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages.

28 U.S.C. § 1915. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, I must read the allegations of
the complaint generously, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), and
accept plaintiff’s allegations as true, Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 463 (7th Cir.
2010).
After reviewing plaintiff’s complaint with these principles in mind, I conclude that I
must stay the case under the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971), and I will direct the clerk of court to administratively close the case.
Based on his plaintiff’s complaint and state of Wisconsin electronic court records, I
take plaintiff to be challenging the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against him in Dunn
County, where he has been charged with simulating legal process. See Wisconsin v. Hermann,
Dunn County Case No. 2015CF293. But these proceedings are still ongoing. Under Younger,
federal courts are required to show proper respect for state judicial systems and abstain from
issuing orders that would interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions, except in limited
circumstances. 401 U.S. at 45.
One such circumstance may be where governmental officials have pursued criminal
charges against the plaintiff in bad faith. “A plaintiff asserting bad faith prosecution as an
exception to Younger abstention must allege specific facts [that] show that state prosecution
was brought in bad faith for the purpose of retaliating for or deterring the exercise of
constitutionally protected rights.” Collins v. Kendall County, 807 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1986);
see also Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 126 n.6 (1975) (“‘[B]ad faith’ in this context
generally means that a prosecution has been brought without a reasonable expectation of
obtaining a valid conviction.”). Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint suggests that this exception
should apply.

2

Because Younger applies, I may abstain by dismissing the suit or by staying it. Majors v.
Engelbrecht, 149 F.3d 709, 714 (7th Cir. 1998). “The pivotal question in making this
determination is whether any of the relief sought by the plaintiff in [his] federal action is
unavailable in the state action.” FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana, 502 F.3d 590, 600 (7th Cir.
2007). Because the money damages plaintiff seeks are not available in his state court
proceedings, I must stay this case, and I will direct the clerk of court to administratively close
it.
Plaintiff is free to file a motion to reopen this case after the conclusion of the pending
state criminal proceedings, including his appeals and any relevant state collateral review
proceedings. See Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 139 (7th Cir. 1995). But even if plaintiff
plans to do so, he should be aware that his complaint has problems that make it highly
unlikely that he could maintain any claims for relief. Plaintiff names large swaths of Dunn
County and state officials as defendants without regard to whether they were personally
involved in his criminal prosecution, and it is unclear whether he has explicitly named as
defendants all of the individuals involved in his proceedings, which would likely be reason for
this court to direct him to amend his complaint upon reopening of the case. Plaintiff also
lards his complaint with discussions of frivolous “sovereign citizen”-type theories that do not
support a claim. See, e.g., Dkt. 1, at 2 (“Judicial non-jury commercial judgments and orders
originate from a limited liability entity called a municipal corporation – hence must be
reinforced by a Commercial Affidavit and a Commercial Liability Bond”). If the criminal case
results in plaintiff’s conviction, and plaintiff reopens this case, I will likely have to dismiss it
because a judgment in his favor in this court would imply the invalidity of his conviction.
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

3

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is STAYED, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971), pending final resolution of plaintiff Timothy Louis Hermann’s state criminal
proceedings. The clerk of court is directed to administratively close this case.
Entered June 22, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

4