Flood v. Margis
Decision Date | 15 January 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 70-C-110.,70-C-110. |
Parties | John N. FLOOD, M.D., Plaintiff, v. John MARGIS, Jr., Stephen Horvath, Jr., John Kroes, Donald Boutell, Edward Krivsky, Virginia Healy, Attorney Kenneth Hostak, Sheriff Joseph Blessinger, Does One Through Ten, and Town of Caledonia, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John N. Flood, pro se.
Harold D. Gehrke, Corp. Counsel, Racine County, Racine, Wis., for Sheriff Blessinger.
Prosser, Zimmermann, Wiedabach, Koppa & Quale, by John E. Feldbruegge, Milwaukee, Wis., for Kenneth Hostak.
Foley, Capwell, Foley & Seehawer, by Robert A. Christensen, Racine, Wis., for other defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
The plaintiff, a resident of California, brings this action against certain present and former officials of the town of Caledonia, Racine County, Wisconsin, and others, including the sheriff of Racine County. This decision will consider various motions now before the court.
The complaint states that the plaintiff operated a mobile home park in Caledonia from 1948 to 1966. In 1964, the town board allegedly refused to renew the plaintiff's license to operate the park, and in 1969 the park property was sold at a sale conducted by the defendant sheriff. This court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 and 1342, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985.
Although the plaintiff, who appears pro se, relies on § 1342, such section appears to be inapplicable. Section 1342 provides for enjoining the enforcement of a state rate order, and the plaintiff must allege that he falls within one of the statute's exceptions. 2A Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 8.091, at 1647 (1968). It is probable that the plaintiff intended, instead, to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which gives this court jurisdiction to hear actions in which the deprivation of civil rights is alleged.
On two previous occasions, the plaintiff herein has been obliged to amend his complaint. In my opinion, however, the plaintiff's erroneous reference to § 1342 is not fatal to his complaint. The pleadings of one who pleads pro se for the protection of civil rights should be liberally construed. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed.2d 80 (1957); Kelly v. Butler County Bd. of Com'rs, 399 F.2d 133 (3d Cir.1968); Weaver v. Pate, 390 F.2d 145 (7th Cir.1968); Eaton v. Bibb, 217 F.2d 446, 448 (7th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 915, 76 S.Ct. 199, 100 L. Ed. 802 (1955); Rule 8(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The civil rights statutes relied upon by the plaintiff create causes of action for the redress of certain wrongs. Under the allegations of the present complaint, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 are inapplicable, and only §§ 1983 and 1985 need be considered for the purposes of the present action. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968); Tyler v. Russel, 410 F.2d 490 (10th Cir.1969); Daly v. Pedersen, 278 F.Supp. 88 (D.C.Minn. 1967).
All of the defendants have moved to dismiss and for increased security for costs. The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment and to strike an allegedly defective affidavit of one of the defendants. In addition, some of the defendants have asked that this action be abated pending the outcome of certain state court proceedings, and the defendant sheriff has moved, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The motions to dismiss will be considered first.
The broad thrust of Dr. Flood's claims is contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint, where it is stated:
This remarkable mélange of allegations, as expanded in subsequent paragraphs of the complaint, can best be divided into eight separate areas, each of which will be discussed individually.
Paragraph 7 of the complaint charges that several of the defendants "invaded" the plaintiff's attorney-client relationship. There is nothing in the complaint, however, to illustrate the circumstances surrounding the accomplishment of this alleged act. This claim is nothing more than the plaintiff's conclusion, unsupported by any factual statement and is not admitted by a motion to dismiss. See Hess v. Petrillo, 259 F.2d 735, 736 (7th Cir.1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 954, 79 S.Ct. 743, 3 L.Ed.2d 761 (1959); Borchlewicz v. Partipilo, 44 F. R.D. 540, 542 (E.D.Wis.1968). As was stated in Friedman v. Younger, 46 F.R.D. 444, 446 (C.D.Cal.1969):
In a recent decision, this court considered the need for particularization of facts in a civil rights complaint. In Weise v. Reisner, 318 F.Supp. 580 (E. D.Wis.1970), the court stated at pages 583 and 584:
In Asher v. Harrington, 318 F. Supp. 82 (E.D.Wis.1970), the court also noted the requirement that a civil rights complaint be specific in its factual assertions. The court of appeals for this circuit very recently stated in Metcalf v. Ogilvie, 436 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1970):
Furthermore, the rights and privileges accruing from the attorney-client relationship are matters of statutory law in Wisconsin. See § 885.22, Wis.Stats. (1967); Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d 623 (9th Cir.1960); Davis v. Foreman, 251 F.2d 421 (7th Cir.1958), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 974, 78 S.Ct. 1137, 2 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1958). Violation of a state law does not automatically give rise to a cause of action under the civil rights acts. Ortega v. Ragen, 216 F.2d 561, 562 (7th Cir.1954). It is only when such violation results in the infringement of a federally protected right that a cause of action may be said to exist. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 108, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945); Sigler v. Lowrie, 404 F.2d 659, 662 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U. S. 940, 89 S.Ct. 2010, 23 L.Ed.2d 456 (1969).
In addition, the plaintiff's claim asserted in paragraph 7 is no more cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 than it is under the civil rights statutes, for it does not rise to the level of a substantial federal question so as to give this court jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., Baird v. Koerner, supra, and Annot., 95 A.L.R.2d 320 (1964). For these reasons, the contentions contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint must fail.
Paragraphs 8, 9, 20, 21, and 25 allege that the defendants misused the state courts to deprive the plaintiff of certain of his constitutionally protected rights. In particular, he contends that the defendants fraudulently and deceitfully made use of false and fabricated statements of fact and law to subject the plaintiff, on occasion, to "sham" trials that resulted in "triggered" state court judgments.
These portions of the complaint are replete with conclusionary allegations that are devoid of factual support, and, like the claim referred to in section I, cannot withstand the defendants' motion to dismiss. In Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16 (3d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861, 90 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Board of Trustees of Weston County School Dist. No. 1, Weston County v. Holso
...299 (N.D.Ill.1976); Davidson v. Dixon, 386 F.Supp. 482 (D.Del.1974); Ames v. Vavreck, 356 F.Supp. 931 (D.Minn.1973); Flood v. Margis, 322 F.Supp. 1086 (E.D.Wis.1971). See particularly Lombard v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 407 F.Supp. 1166 In setting forth these elements, an......
-
Hartridge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...upon which relief could be granted. Judgment affirmed. 1 Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1977), p. 938, sec. 129.2 See also Flood v. Margis, 322 F.Supp. 1086 (D.C.E.D.Wis.1971).3 Shockley v. Prier, 66 Wis.2d 394, 225 N.W.2d 495 (1975); Conklin v. Horner, 38 Wis.2d 468, 157 N.W.2d 579 (1968).4 See a......
-
Flood v. Margis
...and to strike an allegedly defective affidavit of one of the defendants. In a decision and order reported sub nom. Flood v. Margis et al., 322 F.Supp. 1086 (E.D.Wis.1971), the district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court di......
-
Molgaard v. Town of Caledonia
...rights. The plaintiffs assert that none of the individual defendants could have acted in good faith because all of them were aware of the Flood litigation, of which I took judicial notice at trial. See Flood v. Margis, 322 F.Supp. 1086 (E.D.Wis.1971); reversed in part, 461 F.2d 253 (7th Cir......