United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION & ORDER
R. Leichty Judge
Toshisada Onishi has filed several motions and amended
motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Indiana Court of Appeals
from pursuing its legal proceedings regarding the custody of
his minor child. For the following reasons, the court DENIES
Mr. Onishi's motions.
Toshisada Onishi met Rachel House on September 11, 2011 in
Tokyo, Japan. ECF 1 at 12. They married in Japan in 2012 and
have one minor son. Id. Three years later, they
moved together to New Jersey. Id. Rachel House and
her son, however, moved to Indiana later that year; and Ms.
House subsequently initiated a dissolution proceeding in St.
Joseph Superior Court. Id.
David Chapleau, named a defendant in this case, entered a
final dissolution of their marriage on February 5, 2019.
Id. at 13. Judge Chapleau's decree did not award
Mr. Onishi primary physical custody of his child.
Id. Mr. Onishi claims that Judge Chapleau's
findings in the matter were erroneous. Id. Mr.
Onishi contends that various other named defendants (cited in
his brief) took part in implementing the state court order.
Onishi alleges that he filed multiple complaints on February
15, 2019 and February 25, 2019 against Judge Chapleau along
with motions for change of judge, but that Judge Chapleau
issued an order denying such motions. Id. Mr. Onishi
claims to have filed a motion to enjoin or stay Judge
Chapleau's ruling, but the state court denied that motion
as well. Id. On February 26, 2019, Mr. Onishi orally
stated his grievance against Judge Chapleau, but relief was
not granted. Id.
February 28, 2019, Mr. Onishi contacted Ms. Adrienne Meiring
of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualification (ICJQ)-a
defendant in this case-to file his grievance against Judge
Chapleau. This grievance was also dismissed. Id. On
August 8, 2019, Mr. Onishi filed a motion to dismiss with the
ICJQ, which issued a letter dismissing Mr. Onishi's
complaint against Judge Chapleau. Id. at 14.
Onishi then alleges that other defendants refused to produce
material evidence that warranted his primary physical custody
of his minor child. Id. A few weeks later, Judge
Jenny Manier dismissed Mr. Onishi's petition to modify
the February 5, 2019 order. Id.
case proceeded on appeal. On October 22, 2019, Mr. Onishi
filed a motion for leave of court to toll the time
limitations for a petition for rehearing with the Indiana
Court of Appeals, but this motion was denied. Id. at
15. On November 4, 2019, Mr. Onishi also submitted a
grievance and request for an investigation regarding judicial
misconduct committed by other defendants, but the ICJQ has
not yet responded to the motion. Id.
Onishi challenges various Indiana statutes on the ground that
they are unconstitutional and violate his constitutional
rights. Id. at 5-12. He requested that the Indiana
Court of Appeals stay any further state court proceedings
concerning his appeal of Judge Chapleau's order pending
the resolution of the constitutionality of the Indiana
statutes in federal district court. His motion to stay
proceedings was denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals
through an order signed by Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik.
Id. at 15. She is now a defendant in this case as
Onishi has filed a request for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction, amended several times, asking
this court to stay any further proceedings in state court
pending resolution of his claims in this court. His
amendments have varied slightly, but materially they all
share the singular and immediate concern of the state
court's action, denial of his stay in state court, and an
appellate brief deadline of December 14 (or 16), 2019.
Id. at 40; ECF 19 at 2, 20 at 1-3, 30 at 2.
CONDUCT AND OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
addressing the merits of Mr. Onishi's motions for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the
court will address various other motions and matters
concerning this proceeding. Within approximately two weeks,
and in many cases before parties were served or appeared, Mr.
Onishi accomplished approximately thirty separate filings.
Mr. Onishi has been granted permission to appear pro hac
vice in this case, so he must comply with the federal
and local rules that govern this proceeding.
matter of two weeks, Mr. Onishi has violated applicable rules
multiple times, which disrupt the orderly management of this
proceeding, create delays in ruling, and otherwise interfere
with the timely ...