United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on several pending motions: Motion
for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Order (Filing
No. 2) filed by Plaintiff Wilson Egwuenu
(“Egwuenu”); Motion for Appointment of a Master
to Investigate Abuse of Authority (Filing No. 4)
filed by Egwuenu; Motion to Dismiss Under Rules 8(A), 12
(B)(6) and Alternative Motion to Drop Joe Feldman as a Party
Defendant Under Rules 20 and 21 (Filing No. 29)
filed by Defendant Joe Feldman (“Feldman”);
Motions (I) to Dismiss Complaint Under Rules 12(B)(2) and
12(B)(6) and (II) for an Order Regulating Further Actions
(Filing No. 34) filed by Defendant Walter Bettinger
(“Bettinger”); Amended Motion for Sanction
(Filing No. 43) filed by Egwuenu; Motion for
Reconsideration (Filing No. 49) filed by Egwuenu;
Supplemental Motion for Sanction (Filing No. 51)
filed by Egwuenu; Motion to Strike Defendant Feldman's
Motion to Stay Response (Filing No. 61) filed by
Egwuenu; and Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No.
62) filed by Egwuenu, (collectively, “the Pending
Motions”). On November 27, 2017 Defendant Megan Brennan
filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 65.) The
Courts considers and rules on each motion in this Entry.
22, 2017, Egwuenu, a citizen of Polk County, Iowa, filed a 46
page, single spaced Complaint consisting of 255 paragraphs,
against the Defendants alleging that each in their official
capacity committed various wrongdoings against him.
(Filing No. 1.) On that same date, Egwuenu filed a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filing No. 2),
and Motion for Appointment of a Master to Investigate Abuse
of Authority (Filing No. 4). The Defendants are Hon.
Megan Brennan, United States Postmaster General and CEO of
the United States Postal Services (“Brennan”),
Walter Bettinger, President and CEO of Charles Schwab, and
Dr. Joe Feldman, President and CEO of St. Vincent Hospital,
claims alleged are Count I: Conspiracy to Deprive Person of
Civil Rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; Count II:
Deprivation of Constitutional Rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; Count III: Retaliation Against Plaintiff for
Accessing the Court; Count IV: Interference with
Plaintiff's Meaningful Access to Court and Spoliation of
Evidence; Count V: Employment Discrimination and Retaliatory
Termination; Count VI: Interference with Plaintiff's
Contractual Relationships; Count VII: Interference with
Plaintiff's Prospective Contractual Relationship; Count
VII: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (the Court
notes that these two counts listed as Count VII); Count VIII:
Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Count VIII: Negligence (the Court
again notes that there are two counts are listed Count VIII);
Count IX: Negligence Per Se; Count X: Defamation, Libel, and
Slander of Plaintiff; Count XI: Private Nuisance and Torture;
Count XII: Unjust Enrichment; Count XII: Unlawful Search of
Home Without Warrant (the Court notes that there are two
counts are listed as Count XII); Count XIV: Concert of
Action, Individual, Joint, and Several Liability (the Court
notes there is no Count XIII); Count XV: RICO; Count XVI:
Hobbs Act Violations (Extortion); and Count XVII: Violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
September 1, 2017 Dr. Feldman filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim (Filing No. 29). Dr.
Feldman argues the very lengthy Complaint fails to meet the
notice pleadings requirements under Rule 8 and creates an
unintelligible patchwork of allegations. Dr. Feldman asks the
Court to dismiss Egwuenu's Complaint with prejudice under
Rule 12(b)(6). Alternatively, if this Court finds that
Egwuenu has successfully stated any claim, he moves to be
dropped as a defendant to this case for misjoinder of parties
under Rules 20 and 21.
September 11, 2017, Bettinger filed a Motion to Dismiss under
Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). (Filing No. 34.)
Bettinger argues that Egwuenu is a serial litigator who has
filed four actions in the Southern District of Indiana, each
seeking to redress substantially the same group of defendants
and nearly the same perceived grievances and courts in the
Southern District of Indiana have thrice dismissed
Egwuenu's cases. Bettinger seeks dismissal under 12(b)(2)
because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him.
Further, Bettinger asserts dismissal is appropriate under
Rule 12(b)(6) based on res judicata, he is not
plausibly connected to the unintelligible allegations, and
the allegations fail to state a claim.
November 13, 2017, Egwuenu filed a Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Brennan, the United States
Postmaster General (Filing No. 62). Thereafter,
Brennan filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 4(m), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5), on the grounds
that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the
Postmaster General because Egwuenu has not effected service
of process within 90 days of the filing of the complaint.
(Filing No. 65).
delivering a copy of his Complaint to the local United States
Attorney, Egwuenu failed to deliver a copy of his Complaint
to Brennan directly, as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(i), to perfect service on a United States agency,
officer, or employee. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(2). Because Egwuenu
failed to perfect service on Brennan, his Motion for Default
Judgment against Brennan (Filing No. 62) is
denied. For this same reason, the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction on the Postmaster General and
Brennan's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
(Filing No. 65).
the other motions to dismiss, the Court agrees that
Egwuenu's Complaint violates the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), violates the misjoinder
of claims limitation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20(a)(2), and is unintelligible. Under Rule 8(a), a complaint
must contain a short and plain statement of facts that states
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face and that
provides a defendant with fair notice of what claims are
being brought against it and the grounds supporting such
claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Bell Alt. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008).
Pro se complaints are generally “held to
‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.'” Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304,
309 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Haines v Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Additionally, Rule 20(a)(2) states
that a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in a single
action if “any right to relief is asserted against them
… with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences” and if “any question of law or fact
common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
Here, Egwuenu's Complaint, is unintelligible. It brings a
series of unrelated claims and the Complaint does not
describe any connection that may exist between Defendants Dr.
Feldman, Bettinger, and Brennan. If Egwuenu wishes to state
claims against the Defendants that are unrelated to one
another, he must bring each unrelated claim in a separate
lawsuit. Furthermore, although Egwuenu's Complaint
seemingly attempts to state claims against St. Vincent
Hospital and Charles Schwab Corporation, Egwuenu confusingly
named Dr. Feldman, the President and CEO of St. Vincent
Hospital, and Bettinger, the President and CEO of Charles
Schwab Corporation, as defendants instead of the companies
themselves. See Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l,
Inc., 570 F.3d 858, 866 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“Corporate officers normally enjoy protection from
personal liability for acts they commit on behalf of the
corporation.”). For all of these reasons, the Motions
to Dismiss filed by Dr. Feldman (Filing No. 29) and
Bettinger (Filing No. 34), respectively, are
granted, and Egwuenu's Complaint
the action has been dismissed and Complaint stricken, the
summonses issued are quashed. Because
Egwuenu's Complaint is stricken, his Motion for
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (Filing No. 2)
is denied as moot.
Response to Bettinger's Motion to Dismiss, Egwuenu
incorporated a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counts
or Claims, as well as his Proposed Amended Claims or Counts.
(Filing No. 52 at 2-19.) However, Egwuenu's
motion does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule
15-1. Under Local Rule 15-1, a motion to amend a pleading
must be filed separately and must be accompanied by a
proposed order and a copy of the proposed amended pleading.
Because Egwuenu has not filed a separate motion for leave to
amend his Complaint with his proposed amended complaint
attached, Egwuenu's Proposed Amended Claims or
Counts are stricken.
Motion for Appointment of a Master to Investigate Abuse of
Authority (Filing No. 4) is denied
because Egwuenu has made no showing that exceptional
circumstances exist here to necessitate such an appointment
and because ...