United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DETRICK CURTIS CONERLY, MICHAEL AARON BONNER, JOHN MENO CRUZ, Plaintiffs,
TOM WOLF, MS. KATHLEEN KANE, PARAN LLP, Defendants.
ENTRY DISMISSING MISCELLANEOUS CASE AND DIRECTING
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
reasons explained below, this miscellaneous action to
register a foreign judgment is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. In the absence of jurisdiction there is nothing
to do but announce this fact and close the case. Accordingly
all pending motions are denied as moot.
Detrick Curtis Conerly, Michael Aaron Bonner, and John Meno
Cruz (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are Idaho state
prisoners. They seek to register a foreign judgment
purportedly issued by the Court of Common Pleas of
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, against Defendants Tom
Wolf, Ms. Kathleen Kane and Paran LLP. Plaintiffs seek to
obtain “full faith and credit” for the
Westmoreland County Judgment in this Court. Plaintiffs state
that “[t]he reason for the registration is because
there is an absence of assets in the rendering county court.
It is believed that Paran LLP may have some assets in the
Southern District of Indiana.” (Dkt. 1 at page 2.)
Court has not been able to identify a certified copy of the
judgment in the blizzard of papers the plaintiffs have
submitted. The plaintiffs have submitted a document captioned
for the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania which reads:
See Dkt. 1-5 at ¶ 12. In addition, the
Plaintiffs have submitted a subsequent Order of Court which
reflects that on October 31, 2016, the Plaintiffs decided
that they only wished to pursue this action against Paran LLP
and that there was no objection to dismissing Tom Wolf and
Kathleen Kane from the state case as defendants. However, no
amended judgment issued by the state court was submitted.
these documents are pieced together, it appears that the
plaintiffs have filed this action in the hopes of enforcing a
judgment against Paran LLP in the amount of $138.00.
Defendant Paran LLP allegedly has its headquarters at 2127 S.
Helen Street Boise, Idaho, 83705. Dkt. 6-1 at p. 8. It also
has a last known address of Paran LLP, 536 Franklin St. 1F,
Reading PA, 19602. Dkt. 12 at p. 5.
plaintiffs' intentions, however, go beyond a $138.00
debt. Instead they state that the judgment also includes a
statement that they are “sovereign, ” such that
“no one can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over
John Meno Cru[z], Michael Aaron Bonner, and Detrick Curtis
Conerly without their expressed consent. Anyone who restricts
his liberty will be charged twenty five thousand dollars U.S.
(lawful money) for every twenty three minutes of restriction
of liberty in any form.” See dkt. 6 at p. 2.
No such language in a state court issued judgment was
identified. In addition, the theory that the plaintiffs'
custodians could be liable for the plaintiffs continued
incarceration based on a Pennsylvania state court judgment
against Paran LLP is unclear.
event, the Entry of September 11, 2017, instructed Plaintiffs
that “to obtain the registration of a foreign judgment
sought by the plaintiffs, they must show that the underlying
claim is one over which a federal court would have
jurisdiction.” GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., 718
F.3d 615, 624-25 (7th Cir. 2013). The Plaintiffs were given a
period of time in which to identify the basis on which this
federal court would have jurisdiction over the cause of
action asserted in their complaint brought in Bonner, et
al., v. PARAN LLP, et al., No. 4329 JU 2016 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. What
followed was more than 600 pages of documentation that
included various assertions of fact or law. Those papers
reflect that the underlying state court action was frivolous
and include the following assertions.
papers reflect an attempt to change the defendant from PARAN
LLP to the State of Idaho and its counties. See
e.g., Dkt. 13.
There is a motion to join Michael Griffith because he
“has a similar judgment from the Court of Common Pleas
Westmoreland County PA that states that he is sovereign and
not a person” and “his liberty is also being
restricted by the Defendant(s).” Dkt. 8 at 2.
There is a request for emergency hearing based on the fact
that the statutes the plaintiffs were convicted under use the
term “person.” Dkt. 9 at 3.
plaintiffs suggest that jurisdiction is proper because
criminal judgments have been issued against them. Dkt. 12 ...