Stanard v. Nygren

• Decision Date: 19 September 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–1487.,09–1487.
• Citation: 80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1082,658 F.3d 792
• Parties: H. Michael STANARD, individually and d/b/a One Zero Charlie Productions and Galt Festivals, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Keith NYGREN, individually and as Sheriff of McHenry County, Illinois, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

658 F.3d 792

80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1082

H. Michael STANARD, individually and d/b/a One Zero Charlie Productions and Galt Festivals, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.Keith NYGREN, individually and as Sheriff of McHenry County, Illinois, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 09–1487.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Oct. 28, 2010.Decided Sept. 19, 2011.

Walter P. Maksym, II, (argued), Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.Donald B. Leist, argued, Asst. State's Atty., and Sarah B. Jansen, Asst. State's Atty., McHenry County, Woodstock, IL, for Defendants–Appellees.Before MANION, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.SYKES, Circuit Judge.

Michael Stanard built an outdoor stage on his property in rural McHenry County, Illinois, and began hosting events there. He claims that Keith Nygren, the Sheriff of McHenry County, forced him to hire off-duty deputies as a private security force for these events and threatened to close the road leading to his property if he did not comply. Stanard sued Nygren, 22 of his deputies, and McHenry County, alleging a conspiracy to violate his rights, but his attorney Walter Maksym proved unable to file an intelligible complaint. After giving Maksym three tries at producing a complaint that complied with Rules 8 and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. On Stanard's behalf Maksym brought this appeal, insisting that the second amended complaint satisfied the rules, and even if it did not, the district court should have given him yet another chance to replead.

We affirm. The district court was well within its discretion to reject the second amended complaint and dismiss the case with prejudice. Each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing. Maksym's persistent failure to comply with basic directions from the court and his open defiance of court orders amply justified the judge's decision to dismiss with prejudice. Moreover, like his pleadings in the district court, Maksym's appellate briefing is woefully deficient, raising serious concerns about his competence to practice before this court. Accordingly, we order Maksym to show cause why he should not be suspended from the bar of this court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Finally, we direct the clerk to send a copy of this opinion to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

I. Background

We describe the facts only briefly and as best we can decipher them from the second amended complaint and Stanard's appellate briefs. The procedural history of the case is also important to the resolution of the issues on appeal.

The plaintiffs are H. Michael Stanard, his wife Joeleen, and their company One Zero Charlie Productions.¹ They constructed an open-air amphitheater on their property in rural McHenry County and began staging public events there. Stanard claims that Sheriff Nygren compelled him to hire off-duty sheriff's deputies at inflated rates as private security for these events. To coerce Stanard into accepting, Nygren threatened to close the road leading to Stanard's property. This went on for a number of years; Stanard claims he was afraid to disobey Nygren. He also claims that Nygren engaged in this course of conduct against other residents of McHenry County. Finally, Stanard alleges that Nygren's deputies menaced the spectators who attended the events on Stanard's property and otherwise created an intimidating environment.

Stanard, by his counsel Walter Maksym, sued Nygren in his individual and official capacities, along with 22 deputies, McHenry County, and unknown additional defendants.² The original complaint was 52 pages long and purported to assert 28 counts, including civil RICO claims, §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, and various state-law claims. Each claim targeted “the defendants” as a group; the complaint did not specify which individual defendants were alleged to be liable on each claim. The complaint also included a number of obviously frivolous claims; for example, a violation of the Hobbs Act (a criminal statute that does not provide a private right of action), something called a “direct action under [the] U.S. Constitution,” and a generic “federal class action.”

The defendants moved for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Stanard was ordered to either respond or file a notice saying that he declined to do so. Maksym ignored the motion and order. Nevertheless, a magistrate judge denied Rule 12(e) relief. Nygren then moved to dismiss the official-capacity claims. Maksym continued to disregard deadlines. Stanard's response to Nygren's motion was due in October 2007, but Maksym failed to respond. Three months later, the court, on its own motion, extended this deadline to February 11, but again Maksym failed to respond by that date. On February 19 he finally filed a response to Nygren's motion.

In the meantime, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss the rest of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court set a January 11, 2008 deadline for Stanard to respond. Maksym missed this deadline, too. On January 23, nearly two weeks after the deadline to respond had expired, Maksym asked for an extension of time. The court granted this request and extended the deadline to March 18.³ On June 18, three months after the extended deadline, the district court extended the deadline again and ordered a response by July 2. The court's June 18 order warned Maksym that if he failed to timely respond, Stanard's case would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Maksym filed his response on July 2.

The district court granted the motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the frivolous claims mentioned above (the Hobbs Act claim, the “direct action under [the] U.S. Constitution,” and the “federal class action”) with prejudice. ⁴ The court held that the rest of the complaint suffered from serious deficiencies under Rules 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement” of the claims), 8(d)(1) (requiring pleading to be “simple, concise, and direct”), and 10(b) (requiring claims to be set forth in separate paragraphs and limited to single sets of circumstances “as far as practicable”). The court dismissed the remaining 25 claims without prejudice and gave Maksym until September 30, 2008, to cure the complaint's deficiencies. Helpfully, the court included a list of errors that needed to be fixed.

At 10:34 p.m. on September 30, Maksym moved for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. The stated basis for this motion was that Maksym's computer was damaged in an earthquake while he was in California sitting for that state's bar exam in late July.⁵ Over the defendants' objection, the court granted the motion and set a new due date of October 22 at 5 p.m. At 4:59 p.m. on October 22, Maksym filed a motion for leave to file his amended complaint; the amended complaint itself was not filed until 7:01 p.m. that day. His attempt to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint was haphazard at best. Some of the counts were completely unchanged, and many of the specific concerns raised by the district court were not adequately addressed. The court denied leave to file the amended complaint. Rather than dismissing the case with prejudice, however, the court gave Maksym one more opportunity to submit a proper complaint, setting a deadline of October 31 at 5 p.m.

On October 31, at 4:41 p.m., Maksym filed another motion for leave to amend, along with a second amended complaint inexplicably titled “First Amended Complaint.” Again, few of the many errors in the earlier complaints were fixed. The district court rejected Maksym's latest effort, outlining at length the many pleading defects in the second amended complaint. To illustrate its basic incoherence, the court quoted verbatim from a number of its paragraphs, including one that contained a staggering and incomprehensible 345–word sentence. The court also took note of the “grammatical and spelling errors” throughout the complaint, which it said were “too numerous to add ‘[sic]’ where required.” Noting that the purpose of Rules 8 and 10 is to provide “ ‘fair notice’ of the claims and the grounds upon which the claims rest,” the court held that the second amended complaint was “so poorly drafted and obviously not in compliance with” the rules of pleading that the defendants were left to “guess which actions apply to each claim.” Rather than give Maksym yet another opportunity to replead, by this time the court had had enough:

Based on the lack of diligence, including a pattern of waiting until the last minute (sometimes literally) to file their motions to amend with non-compl [ia]nt proposed amended complaints attached, the failure to comply with this court's previous orders, and this court's explicit warning of the consequences for doing so, plaintiffs will not be afforded another opportunity to replead.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and relinquished jurisdiction over the supplemental state-law claims.

Maksym's inability to articulate a “short and plain statement” of his clients' claims for relief did not end in the district court, nor did he improve his approach to court-ordered deadlines and following simple directions once the case reached this court. Maksym sought and received no fewer than three extensions of time to file his opening brief on appeal.⁶ Along the way we admonished him for filing his extension motions late and failing to comply with Circuit Rule 26, which requires specificity in motions to extend time. Even with three extensions, Maksym was unable to file his brief on time. Instead, he filed his...