Weber, Glenn v. Elmbrook Memorial Hospital

Filing 5

ORDER denying plaintiff leave to proceed and dismissing the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The clerk of court is directed to close each case. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/19/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
GLENN WEBER,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
17-cv-164-wmc
ELMBROOK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GLENN WEBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
17-cv-165-wmc
EASTER SEALS SOUTHEASTERN
(WISCONSIN)/MILWAUKEE,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GLENN WEBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
17-cv-256-wmc
KELLY TREU-THIEL,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GLENN WEBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
17-cv-257-wmc
RACHEL L. WIELAND and JEREMY
(last name unknown),
Defendants.
Plaintiff Glenn Weber, proceeding pro se, has filed four actions against the

defendants identified in the captions above, which the court will refer to here as ‘164, ‘165,
‘256 and ‘257. Weber asks for leave to proceed in each lawsuit under the in forma pauperis
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. From the financial affidavit Weber has provided, the court
concluded that he was unable to prepay the filing fees for these lawsuits. Accordingly, the
court must screen his complaints to determine if each of the proposed actions are: (1)
frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek
money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims described in the four
proposed claims, the court must deny plaintiff leave to proceed and dismiss each case
without prejudice.

OPINION
As with all federal district courts, this is a court of limited jurisdiction. Generally,
this court may exercise jurisdiction over cases: (1) presenting a federal question (i.e.,
asserting a federal constitutional or statutory claim), 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (2) where the
plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than the defendant and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). From the face of the complaints, it appears that
both Weber and the proposed defendants in each of the four subject cases are citizens of
the State of Wisconsin.1 Therefore, the only available basis for jurisdiction over Weber’s

While Weber does not allege the citizenship of defendants, the complaints provide sufficient
information, coupled with public information available on the internet, to conclude that each of
the proposed defendants are citizens of Wisconsin. Elmbrook Memorial Hospital, the proposed
defendant in the ‘164 complaint, appears to be part of the Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare network,
and is located in Brookfield, Wisconsin. From its name, the court also assumes Easter Seals
Southeastern (Wisconsin) / Milwaukee, named in the ‘165 complaint, is a citizen of Wisconsin.
1

2

proposed claims would be that of a federal question.
In the ‘164 case, Weber alleges that: (1) defendant Elmbrook Memorial Hospital
failed to do its due diligence in understanding Weber’s father’s financial situation which
resulted in the hospital initiating unwarranted guardianship proceedings; and (2) the
hospital referred his father to an expensive retirement home. Weber further alleges that
the hospital treated him and his father differently because of how they looked; more
specifically, the hospital allegedly did not like Weber’s work clothes and believed the
clothes Weber brought for his father were dirty. Weber seeks compensation as redress for
the hospital’s treatment of his father and him.
From these allegations, however, the court cannot discern any federal cause of
action.

Plaintiff does not allege a constitutional or statutory violation.

While

mistreatment based on one’s dress may be hurtful, it is not a protected category. In other
words, federal law protects discrimination based on race, gender and national origin, among
other protected categories, but differential treatment based on the style of clothing (or a
judgment that the clothes worn were dirty) does not give rise to a federal statutory or
constitutional claim. If anything, based on the allegations, it sounds as though plaintiff
and his father are already involved in a state guardianship proceeding, which likely would

Proposed defendant Kelly Treu-Thiel, named in the ‘256 complaint, appears to reside in Wisconsin,
based on materials attached to the proposed complaint (‘256, dkt. #1-1, at 1), and the court will
assume that also reflects her domicile. The court also assumes that proposed defendants Rachel
Wieland and Jeremy (last name unknown) in the ‘257 complaint are citizens of Wisconsin based
on the allegations in the complaint, and plaintiff’s attachment showing plaintiff as a resident of
Wisconsin. (‘257, dkt. #1-1, at 2.) Of course, if plaintiff has a good faith basis to plead complete
diversity of citizenship between the defendant(s) in any of the four cases, he may move for
reconsideration and file a revised complaint.

3

have a preclusive effect on his claim in case ‘614 and may even be his exclusive avenue for
relief. See Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. 483 (2013) (“The regulation of domestic relations
is traditionally the domain of state law.”).
The allegations in the second proposed case, ‘165, appear related to those asserted
against Elmbrook Memorial Hospital in ‘164.

Plaintiff contends that Easter Seals

Southeastern (Wisconsin) / Milwaukee, an organization involved in his father’s care for
approximately 2.5 years, and perhaps appointed by a state court to fill that role as guardian,
somehow mismanaged his father’s money in providing in-home care, effectively depleting
his bank accounts. He also alleges that the agency stole court papers from the house, sent
a care provider who watched television during his or her shift, and sent another care
provider with a cold, who spread it to his father and others. While the court can certainly
understand plaintiff’s concerns about Easter Seals’ care of his father, there is still no federal
cause of action. At most, plaintiff alleges a breach of fiduciary duty claim, but that would
arise under state common (or perhaps statutory) law, not federal law.
Next comes the ‘256 complaint, in which plaintiff alleges that a former co-worker
Kelly Treu-Thiel had a personal vendetta against him and influenced his firing, as well as
damaged his personal prospects. Still, plaintiff does not allege that Treu-Thiel treated
plaintiff differently because of his race, gender, national origin, or other protected category.
As such, federal statutes that prohibits discrimination in the workforce, like Title VII,
would not appear to apply. Nor does plaintiff allege that Treu-Thiel was a state actor (e.g.,
acted under color of state law or for a governmental body). To the contrary, the court can
discern no federal cause of action from plaintiff’s allegations.

4

Finally, in the ‘257 complaint, plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim of damages against
defendants Rachel Wieland and Jeremy (last name unknown). As with the ‘256 complaint,
his proposed action also involves a co-worker, this time at Wal-Mart, although the
allegations are meandering and extend beyond their shared employment. Plaintiff further
acknowledges to being interested in dating Wieland, but she allegedly rebuffed his
advances and instead reconnected with Jeremy. At some point, plaintiff and Wieland had
a conflict over his attempt to assist her in setting up a display. Plaintiff contends that
Wieland then retaliated against him by notifying human resources, who originally tried to
force him out and then changed his schedule, rather than attempt to resolve an employee
conflict. Plaintiff also alleges that Jeremy attempted to run him over with his car in the
Wal-Mart parking lot.
Wieland eventually resigned, but plaintiff contends that Wal-Mart continued to
attempt to force him out, and he eventually left that job.

While no longer working

together, plaintiff contends that Wieland continued to harm him in a variety of ways,
including poisoning his father, conspiring to cause his friends to lose their jobs, physically
assaulting Weber, interfering with the sale of his home, and causing Weber’s girlfriend to
break up with him, thereby breaking his heart.

Although detailed, very serious and

apparently covering a significant amount of time and a number of events, these allegations
would all appear to be governed by state law, not state a federal claim. In particular,
plaintiff does not allege that Wieland or her boyfriend discriminated against him based on
a protected category or that defendants were state actors subject to claims of

5

discrimination. Indeed, plaintiff alleges, and this court can discern, no federal basis for a
claim, constitutional, statutory or even federal common law.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Glenn Weber is DENIED leave to proceed on the four cases described
in the caption.
2) These claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
3) The clerk of court is directed to close each case.
Entered this 19th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

6