Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Maxberry v. ITT Technical Institute

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 30, 2015

DENNIS LEE MAXBERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
ITT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Defendant ITT Technical Institute's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Docket No. 28], filed on April 2, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiff Dennis Maxberry filed a complaint in this Court on April 9, 2014 against Defendant ITT Technical Institute, LLC ("ITT"), an Indiana-based for-profit higher education company. Maxberry is a former enrollee at ITT; according to an Enrollment Agreement attached by ITT, he enrolled in an M.B.A. graduate course for the quarter starting June 2008. Docket No. 15-8, Def.'s Ex. A.[1]

Maxberry's initial complaint, which we noted was "confusing, disjointed, and difficult to decipher, " alleged that IT-and sundry others-had harmed him in a variety of ways over the course of many years. Docket No. 25 at 2. The court summarized the accusations as follows:

It appears that Plaintiff accuses Defendant of stealing his federal student loan money, failing to award him grades for the classes that he completed, and applying money from his educational loans towards tuition payments even after he withdrew from school. Plaintiff also accuses Defendant of "being unconscious to the plaintiff by arbitrating the contract, " searching his person or property "without a warrant and without probable cause, " using excessive force upon him, failing to provide him with "needed medical care, " "false credit testimony, mayhem on property, defamation, false imcriminalization [sic], malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and/or any other claim that may be supported by the allegations of this complaint." Plaintiff's Complaint makes reference to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983, 1985, and 1986, "Title IX, and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, " the "False claim act, " and avers that "[t]he criminal proceeding by the defendants... [is] still pending, " but that Plaintiff "was innocent."

Docket No. 25 at 2 (internal citations omitted).

We dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint on two grounds. First, a portion of it appeared to constitute, in effect, an "appeal" from a prior judgment entered by the state courts of Wisconsin. In his Wisconsin suit, Maxberry had alleged-in a similarly rambling fashion-that ITT and another entity had harassed him, stalked him, denied him employment, and discriminated against him on grounds of race and sexual orientation. Docket No. 15-3, Def.'s Ex. B. The Milwaukee County Circuit Court granted ITT's motion to compel arbitration of these claims on the basis of the binding arbitration provision. Docket No. 15-4, Def's Ex. C. The state's Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both denied his appeals, rendering the state court judgment final as of December 10, 2012. We accordingly invoked the Rooker-Feldman [2] doctrine, observing that we were barred from consideration of any elements of Maxberry's complaint that urged us to engage in review of the Wisconsin court's rulings. Docket No. 25 at 3-5. (citing Taylor v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 374 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2004)).

Second, we dismissed all remaining portions of Maxberry's initial complaint on the grounds that they failed to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). As we said then:

Assuming that Plaintiff is asserting legal claims in this action that are different and independent from those asserted in Wisconsin, they are nevertheless cast in such an incoherent and confusing manner that they must be dismissed under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)] based on Plaintiff's failure to give Defendant (as well as the Court) fair notice of what they actually are.

Docket No. 25 at 7.

Maxberry filed an Amended Complaint on March 14, 2014. Docket No. 26.

Legal Analysis

Standard of ...


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.