Kness v. City of Kenosha, Wis.

Decision Date26 October 1987
Docket Number85-C-669,No. 85-C-635,85-C-670 and 85-C-671.,85-C-635
Citation669 F. Supp. 1484
PartiesThomas T. KNESS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF KENOSHA, WISCONSIN, Mayor John D. Bilotti, City Attorney James Conway, Robert Jambois, James Mazak, and Kenosha Police Officer Wellman, Defendants. Thomas T. KNESS, Plaintiff, v. "Bud" DeBOER and Bud's Towing, Defendants. Thomas T. KNESS, Plaintiff, v. Al JANTZ, Jantz Auto Parts, Jantz Auto Sales, Inc., and Jantz Auto Salvage Co., Defendants. Thomas T. KNESS, Plaintiff, v. ROMANO'S TOWING and Arcangelo Romano, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas T. Kness, pro se.

James W. Conway, City Atty., Kenosha, Wis., for City of Kenosha, etc.

S. Michael Wolk, Weide, Hartley, Thom, Wilk & Guttormsen, Kenosha, Wis., for Romano's Towing & Arcangelo Romano.

Donald E. Mayew, Phillips, Richard, Lepp, Mayew & Kluka, Kenosha, Wis., for "Bud" DeBoer & Bud's Towing and Al Jantz, et al.

DECISION AND ORDER

WARREN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Thomas T. Kness, pro se, filed the above lawsuits against the municipality, company and individuals that he felt were responsible for the alleged unlawful towing of automobiles parked on his property. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he seeks return of the autos and their contents, an investigation of the involved towing companies by United States Marshals, and damages from various individual defendants ranging from $500,000 to $10,000.

Presently pending before the Court are (1) defendants' motions for summary judgment and (2) plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint in 85-C-635 to add the individual members of the Kenosha City Council. Based on the following decision, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment in 85-C-635 and denies the motions in 85-C-669, 85-C-670, and 85-C-671. Furthermore, the Court denies plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.

I. Background

Mr. Kness and the City of Kenosha have developed a storied case history. Depending on perspective, the characterization could range from that of a principled crusader fighting municipal injustice to that of pain-in-the-neck eccentric badgering duly elected officials. At various times during the lawsuit, Mr. Kness has raised other allegations of official misconduct, including police intimidation and retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit. However, neither a claim of unlawful retaliation nor an evaluation of the parties are properly before the Court. Mr. Kness' complaint deals solely with the towing of his cars.

The following facts are taken from a deposition of Kness, filed with the Court on May 1, 1986.

Kness, a teacher of radar electronics for the Navy, owns property at 8325 Sheridan Road in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The property is posted with "No Tresspassing" signs. At various times, he kept in open view on his property as many as eight cars, a truck and a motorcycle. At least four of the vehicles were not operable. One had no engine, two had defective engines, and one had a defective starter. None of the four had a current license or registration.

Kness received a letter from the City of Kenosha dated March 16, 1984. It read, in part:

DATE March 16, 1984 TO: PROPERTY OR VEHICLE OWNER RE: NUISANCE MOTOR VEHICLES— REMOVAL Re: VEHICLE PARKED ON PROPERTY AT 8325 Sheridan Rd '72 Chev w/blue pickup IL '83 95351 RV '74 VW Green Il '85 XCE721 '70 VW orange IL '83 C0935

Dear Sir or Madam:
Section 7.126 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin prohibits the storage on private property of "Nuisance Motor Vehicles". This shall include any inoperable, unlicensed, unroadworthy, disassembled or wrecked motor vehicle.
You are hereby notified pursuant to said section to abate the nuisance by removing the above listed vehicle from the premises or store the vehicle in a building authorized for such use within ten (10) days of the receipt of this notice. If, at the end of said ten (10) days, the nuisance has not been permanently abated, the owner shall then be in violation of this ordinance and be liable for a daily forfeiture, commencing the thirteenth (13) day following the date of notice sent by registered or certified mail.
Failure to comply with this notice shall be cause for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin Police Department to have the vehicle moved to a proper vehicle storage lot by a City Police Department authorized towing firm.
The cost of removal by the City Police Department authorized towing firm and the storage charges shall be collected pursuant to Section 779.415 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
If you feel you are not in violation of the ordinance, please call Officer Wellman at the Kenosha Police Department, Telephone 656-7345, between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M.

Very truly yours KENOSHA POLICE DEPARTMENT JOSEPH H. TROTTA CHIEF OF POLICE By: ________________ CAREY PEARCY Deputy Chief of Patrol

Written in hand at the top of the letter was, "copy of unclaimed certified letter" and "tow on or after 4/18/84, 8:00 a.m."

On or around October 26, Kness received another letter from the City. It read, in part:

DATE October 18, 1984 TO: PROPERTY OR VEHICLE OWNER RE: NUISANCE MOTOR VEHICLES— REMOVAL RE: VEHICLE PARKED ON PROPERTY AT 8325 Sheridan Rd. VW Orange (bug) C0935 IL '83 XXXXXXXXXX VW Brown (bug) DCR 127 NM '81 XXXXXXXXX 73 VW Lt.Blue (bug) LS8188'84 Vin NA 71 VW Green (but) sic JY9217 '85 XXXXXXXXXX 82 Kawasaki 550 cc Black 607628 '84 July JKAKZFC14CB 513518 (see below) listed on bottom of letter Ferrari Yellow LS7964 '85 Vin.NA Bradley GT Brown Silver GCG950 IL'85 Vin.NA 72 Buick Blk/orange 2dr NR6959'84 4D37H2H4134907

Dear Sir or Madam:
Section 7.126 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin, prohibits the storage on private property of "Nuisance Motor Vehicles". This shall include in inoperable, unlicensed, unroadworthy, disassembled or wrecked motor vehicle.
You are hereby notified pursuant to said section to abate the nuisance by removing the above listed vehicle from the premises or store the vehicle in a building authorized for such use within ten (10) days of the receipt of this notice. If, at the end of said ten (10) days, the nuisance has not been permanently abated, the owner shall then be in violation of this ordinance and be liable for a daily forfeiture, commencing the thirteenth (13) day following the date of notice sent by registered or certified mail.
Failure to comply with this notice shall be cause for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin Police Department to have the vehicle moved to a proper vehicle storage lot by a City Police Department authorized towing firm.
The cost of removal by the City Police Department authorized towing firm and the storage charges shall be collected pursuant to Section 779.415 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
If you no longer own the vehicle(s) in violation, you may disregard this letter. You may pass this letter on to the new owner and inform them that they are in violation of State Statute 342.15(5) as well as the City Ordinance, 342.15(5), Failure of Owner to transfer Title.

Very truly yours, KENOSHA POLICE DEPARTMENT JOSEPH H. TROTTA, CHIEF OF POLICE By: CAREY PEARCY Deputy Chief of Patrol

JHT:CP:fh

On November 18, 1984, five of Kness' cars were towed. Kness was at work at the time. The five were among those listed on the October 18 notice. Kness received no citations arising out of the City's Nuisance Motor Vehicle Ordinance.

Before the vehicles were towed, Kness had called the City Attorney's Office to ask for a pre-tow hearing, but was told that he was not entitled to one. Following the towing, he also was told that he was not entitled to a hearing.

After he learned the vehicles were towed, Kness was so shaken that he became sick and had to miss work.

Kness later learned that the vehicles were towed under the direction of Officer Dale C. Wellman of the Kenosha Police Department. The companies towing the cars were Jantz, Romano's and DeBoer's.

As far as specific wrong-doing on the part of individual defendants, Kness states:

1) the City Attorney, James Conway, is liable because he drafted the ordinance in issue and was legal counsel for the Common Council;

2) Assistant City Attorney Robert Jambois is liable because he failed to furnish Kness with a court date prior to the towing;

3) Assistant City Attorney James Mazak is liable because he did not provide Kness with a court date following the towing;

4) Officer Wellman is liable because he trespassed on Kness' property and enforced an ordinance that he should have known was unlawful;

5) the towing companies and their employees are liable because they trespassed to enforce an unlawful ordinance; also, they may be responsible for a missing jack and spare tire.

Kness further contends that he received a runaround from various defendants in his efforts to learn where his cars were, how he could get them back, and whether he was entitled to a hearing on the matter. For example, he was told by the City Attorney's Office that he could not get an appointment with the office unless he was an attorney.

Kness filed the lawsuits May 1, 1985.

II. Preliminary Matters

Plaintiff, in response to the summary judgment motions, claims that the City of Kenosha and other defendants in 85-C-635 did not answer "the last nine" paragraphs of his complaint. Plaintiff's complaint was submitted on a "Civil Rights Complaint, Pro Se Form." Part III of the form is titled "Statement of Claim." Defendants' Answer addresses the matters in "Paragraph III." Therefore, the Court finds no merit in plaintiff's contention.

Plaintiff further contends that the summary judgment motions were filed prematurely. At a hearing held February 7, 1986, the Court instructed the parties to complete discovery by April 4, 1986, and to file any dispositive motions by April 30, 1986. Defendant City of Kenosha filed its motion May 1, 1986...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ferreira v. Town of E. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 4, 2014
    ...that would automatically excuse the state from affording a pre-deprivation hearing in all cases. See, e.g., Kness v. City of Kenosha, Wis., 669 F.Supp. 1484, 1494 (E.D.Wis.1987) ( “Section 7.126 of the Code of General Ordinances, even in conjunction with Chapter 68, Wis. Stats., does not pr......
  • Carroll v. Kamps
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • June 13, 2011
  • Carroll v. Kamps
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • June 13, 2011
  • Ferreira v. Town of E. Hampton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 4, 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT