Kamsler v. HA Seinscheimer Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio, 14957.

• Decision Date: 11 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 14957.,14957.
• Citation: 347 F.2d 740
• Parties: J. L. KAMSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. A. SEINSCHEIMER CO. OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

347 F.2d 740 (1965)

J. L. KAMSLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. A. SEINSCHEIMER CO. OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14957.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

June 24, 1965.

Rehearing Denied October 11, 1965.

J. L. Kamsler, Chicago, Ill., pro se, for appellant.

Max E. Wildman, David Jacker of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and DUFFY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing Denied October 11, 1965. See 86 S.Ct. 84.

HASTINGS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Jack L. Kamsler, acting pro se, initially brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of himself, his wife and children, the People of the State of Illinois and the People of the United States of America. H. A. Seinscheimer Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio was named as defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover $20,000,000 in alleged damages resulting from an alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conspiracy.

The original complaint was filed on May 25, 1964. On June 1, 1964, the district court, on its own motion, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On June 8, 1964, plaintiff petitioned the district court to reopen the case, and on June 15, 1964, plaintiff filed a verified amended complaint. Subsequently, the cause was reinstated and the June 1, 1964 order of dismissal was vacated.

On June 16, 1964, defendant filed and presented to the district court a motion to quash the purported service of summons, or in the alternative to dismiss the amended complaint. On the same date, the motion to quash the service of summons was argued and granted.

On June 23, 1964, plaintiff served summons on another purported representative of defendant. On June 30, 1964, defendant again moved to quash the service of this summons, filing the affidavit of the person served in support thereof. No counter-affidavits were filed in opposition. However, on July 16, 1964, the district court denied the motion to quash the service of summons.

The motion to quash filed on June 30, 1964 petitioned for alternative relief seeking to dismiss or strike the amended complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that it failed to state a claim against defendant upon which relief could be granted, for failure to allege the existence of a bona fide jurisdictional amount and that plaintiff lacked capacity to sue in the various capacities set forth in his amended complaint, other than in his own behalf.

On August 17, 1964, defendant filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 14, 1964, plaintiff filed his answering brief and on September 22, 1964, defendant filed its reply brief.

On September 25, 1964, after hearing oral argument by the parties, the district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for the reason that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At the same time, judgment was entered dismissing the cause of action and for costs against plaintiff.

On October 14, 1964, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and praying that the dismissal order entered on September 25, 1964 "be withdrawn." On October 30, 1964, the district court denied leave to file a second amended complaint, the motion not being accompanied by a copy of the second amended complaint sought to be filed. The remaining part of the...