Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Skarzynski v. Holder

United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division

January 12, 2015

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al., Defendants.



This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [DE 14], filed by Defendants on September 24, 2014, and a Motion to Add Claims [DE 32], filed by Plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se in this matter) on November 17, 2014. Both motions are fully briefed.[1]

I. Background[2]

This case finds its genesis in a divorce and ensuing child custody dispute between Plaintiff and his ex-wife, Dorota Skarzynska. The two were married in Krakow, Poland, in 1999. Four years later Dorota gave birth to their son. In 2006, the family moved to Valparaiso, Indiana, where Plaintiff worked as a physician. But in May of 2007, Dorota took their son and left for Poland.

Plaintiff then filed for divorce in Porter County, Indiana, Superior Court. Two years later, on May 5, 2009, the Court entered a divorce decree dissolving the marriage. It appears that neither a final child custody order nor a child support provision was included in the divorce decree.

On June 3, 2011, a Porter County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney filed a petition to establish a child support order in the divorce case. On March 1, 2012, the court entered an Agreed Child Support Order, requiring Plaintiff to pay $300 per week.

On November 6, 2013, Plaintiff lost his job as a result of medical malpractice suits filed against him. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a petition for a modification of the child support order because of his loss of income. It appears that Plaintiff’s ex-wife is still in Poland with their son and has refused all of Plaintiff’s attempts to contact him. Plaintiff informs the Court that he filed a petition with the Consulate of France for determination of the appropriate custody jurisdiction, but it is unclear whether any proceedings were initiated.

II. Analysis

A. Motion to Amend Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to pleadings and provides that when, as here, a party is no longer permitted to amend his pleading as a matter of course, the “party may [do so] only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely grant leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that “freely give” means that, in the absence of any apparent or declared reasons (e.g., undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive), repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to an opposing party, or futility of the amendment, the court should grant leave. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010). The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to amend lies within the sound discretion of the district court. See Campbell v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 893 F.2d 925, 927 (7th Cir. 1990).

Defendants contend that the proposed amendments are futile. The standard for futility is the same standard of legal sufficiency that applies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Townsel v. DISH Network LLC, 668 F.3d 967, 969 (7th Cir. 2012); Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1085 (7th Cir. 1997).

To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint must first comply with Rule 8(a) by providing “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), such that the defendant is given “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). Second, the “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1082. The Supreme Court explained that the “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief requires the Court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

As best as this Court can tell, Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint asks that the Court change the policy of the U.S. with respect to issues underlying his custody dispute and to adopt a corrected interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. He also asks that he be given authorization to obtain documents related to one of his malpractice suits as well as documents related to a qui tam action he wishes to pursue.

The proposed Amended Complaint is far-ranging and looks to dozens of sources of law, including the Hague Abduction Treaty, the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, and numerous federal statutes. But, even when construed very liberally, the proposed Amended Complaint fails to make at all clear what wrongful actions Defendants have taken or what redress could be obtained from them. His requests are so non-specific and jumbled together with fanciful legal theories that no plausible claim against any of the defendants can be discerned.[3]See U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.