Magritz v. Ozaukee Cnty., Civil Action No. 12–806 (EGS).

• Decision Date: 30 August 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12–806 (EGS).
• Citation: Magritz v. Ozaukee Cnty., 894 F.Supp.2d 34 (D. D.C. 2012)
• Parties: Steven Alan MAGRITZ, Plaintiff, v. OZAUKEE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

894 F.Supp.2d 34

Steven Alan MAGRITZ, Plaintiff,

v.OZAUKEE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12–806 (EGS).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Aug. 30, 2012.

Steven Alan Magritz, Milwaukee, WI, pro se.

Andrew T. Phillips, Christine K. Van Berkum, Phillips Borowski, SC., Mequon, WI, Deborah Brand Baum, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Steven Alan Magritz filed this action on May 15, 2012 against forty-three defendants that include Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, the Ozaukee County Sherriff's Office, and various public employees, including judges, a district attorney, a register of deeds, and a parks commissioner. Plaintiff's claims relate to the foreclosure of plaintiff's land in the State of Wisconsin in 2001 as a result of plaintiff's failure to pay approximately $30,000 in taxes. Upon consideration of two motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and upon the Court's sua sponte review, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss are hereby GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUNDA. Prior Litigation

In 2001, a state court in Wisconsin entered a judgment of foreclosure against plaintiff's property for failure to pay property taxes. See Order Authorizing Entry of Judgment, No. 01–CV–58–B3 (Ozaukee Cnty., Wis., Aug. 8, 2001), ECF No. 9–5. Following the foreclosure of his property, plaintiff retaliated against thirty-six Ozaukee County officials by filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions and other fraudulent legal documents against them, including false liens alleging those officials owed him $15 million. Dan Benson, Judge Denies Man's Plea to Toss Out Foreclosure Ruling, Milwaukee J. Sentinel, Nov. 6, 2007. ¹ Plaintiff was convicted of criminal slander of title and sentenced to five years in prison. Amy Karon, Lien Machines: Sovereign citizens in Wisconsin make their marks on easily manipulated state system, Wis. L. J., July 20, 2012. After he was released from prison in 2007, plaintiff filed a petition to overturn the 2001 foreclosure of his property, arguing that Ozaukee County had no jurisdiction over the foreclosure. Benson, Judge Denies Man's Plea, supra. The Honorable Andrew T. Gonring, currently named as a defendant in this case, held that plaintiff's petition was filed several years too late, and dismissed the petition. Id.

Also in 2007, plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin before the Honorable Charles N. Clevert, Jr. In that case, Mr. Magritz alleged substantially similar claims to those alleged in this action, including that his property had been taken from him in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin. On June 8, 2009, Judge Clevert ruled that the majority of plaintiff's claims sought to challenge the Wisconsin state court judgment of foreclosure and were accordingly barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, under which lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments. See Decision and Order Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Case, Magritz v. Ozaukee County, et al., No. 07–cv–0714 (E.D.Wis.2007), ECF No. 9–3. Judge Clevert declined to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over several remaining state law claims.

On December 14, 2011, Ozaukee County was granted an injunction against further harassment of its employees by plaintiff. See Injunction–Harassment, No. 11–CV–0773 (Ozaukee Cnty., Wisc., Dec. 14, 2011), ECF No. 9–4. The Order, which is effective until December 14, 2015, states that Mr. Magritz “may not file fraudulent legal proceedings in any Court against any county employee, official or supervisor.”

B. Current Litigation

1. Motions to Dismiss

On May 15, 2012, plaintiff filed this action against forty-three defendants that include Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, the Ozaukee County Sherriff's Office, and various public employees, including judges, a district attorney, a register of deeds, and a parks commissioner. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that these defendants violated his rights under the federal and Wisconsin State Constitutions by taking his property without just compensation.

On June 27, 2012, forty defendants moved to dismiss. See Defs.' June 27, 2012 Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 9 (“June 27 Motion to Dismiss”). Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because plaintiff's claims relate to a 2001 state court judgment foreclosing upon plaintiff's property. Defendants also allege that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants, who are Wisconsin state employees and reside in Wisconsin. Defendants further argue that venue is improper in this Court and that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

On June 29, 2012, this Court issued a Fox/Neal Order advising plaintiff of the June 27 motion to dismiss and explaining his obligation to respond to the motion. The Order directed plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss by no later than July 23, 2012.

On July 6, 2012, a motion to dismiss was filed by the remaining three defendants: Ozaukee County District Attorney Adam Y. Gerol, and two Wisconsin state court judges, the Honorable Sandy A. Williams and the Honorable Andrew T. Gonring. See Defs.' July 6, 2012 Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 11 (“July 6 Motion to Dismiss”). In that motion, defendants argue that venue is improper in this Court, that the action is barred by a six-year statute of limitations, and that the action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, prosecutorial immunity, and judicial immunity.

2. Plaintiff's Subsequent Filings

On July 23, 2012, plaintiff filed identical motions to strike the two motions to dismiss. In the motions to strike, plaintiff did not respond to the grounds alleged in the June 27 Motion to Dismiss, with the exception of the issue of whether defendants were acting in their official capacity. Rather, plaintiff stated that he “reserves the right to address the issues of venue and jurisdiction should the Court so desire.” Mot. to Strike at 9, ECF Nos. 16, 17. Plaintiff did not respond specifically to any of the substantive issues raised in the July 6 Motion to Dismiss.

As a result of plaintiff's failure to respond to most of the arguments in the June 27 Motion to Dismiss and any of the arguments in the July 6 Motion to Dismiss, the Court issued a second Fox/Neal Order on July 26, 2012. In the Order, the Court emphasized that plaintiff “is required to respond to a motion to dismiss or risk dismissal of the case.” July 26 Order at 2. The Court ordered plaintiff to respond to both motions to dismiss on or before August 24, 2012. Id. at 3. The Court also denied plaintiff's motion to strike the motions to dismiss. Id. On July 31, 2012, the Court stayed a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff pending the Court's ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss. See July 31, 2012 Minute Order.

In the last month, plaintiff has filed several documents, none of which meaningfully address the substance of the June 27 or July 6 Motions to Dismiss. Specifically, plaintiff fails to address the argument that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claim under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. On August 6, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Praecipe and Notice to the Clerk” in which he alleged that the Court was improperly addressing plaintiff's mail and listed a number of Orders that he contended he had not received. ² On August 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a document titled “Judicial Notice.” See ECF No. 22. In that document, plaintiff states that “[t]his Court is a Judicial, and not an administrative proceeding, and is governed by Equity Jurisprudence, against all public officers in their individual capacity, and ... [t]his Court shall take Mandatory Judicial Notice of the Maxims governing Equity Jurisprudence. They lie at the foundation of universal justice, and have been worthily and aptly called legum leges—the laws of the laws....” See id.

On August 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Demand Presiding Judge Read All Pleadings Complainant Files With This Court, and Adhere Only to Constitutionally Compliant Law and Case Law, and More Particularly, the “Bill of Rights” and the Maxims of Equity Jurisprudence, in its Rulings.” See ECF No. 23. In the filing, plaintiff further contends that “ [a]ll Court officers shall honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, and Pursuant to this oaths, base and support all rulings in Equity or case law which is Constitutionally compliant....” Id. at 2.

Also on August 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a document titled “Verified Bill Quia Timet, and, Complainant's Verified Motions for: Jurisdictional Clarification, and, Clarification of Unsigned ‘Orders'.” See ECF No. 24. In this document, plaintiff contends that he did not file this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but rather in the “district court of the United States,” which plaintiff contends is “the only remaining federal court venue wherein a man, in propria persona, could obtain relief or remedy in original jurisdiction.” See id. at 1–2. To that end, plaintiff argues that jurisdiction in this Court is improper. See id. at 11–12. Plaintiff further argues that someone other than the undersigned is “using the name of Emmet G. Sullivan ... in a biased and injurious manner....” Id. at 5. Specifically, plaintiff contends that “some person with access to this Court, possibly an inexperienced first-term law clerk, but more likely than not someone acting with mens rea, but certainly not the experienced jurist Emmet G. Sullivan himself, is ... acting either by mistake or with insufficient knowledge of Equity Jurisdiction...