Schroeder v. Kochanowski

• Decision Date: 31 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-4108-JAR.,03-4108-JAR.
• Citation: 311 F.Supp.2d 1241
• Parties: Matt SCHROEDER, Plaintiff, v. Glenn KOCHANOWSKI, et. al Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

311 F.Supp.2d 1241

Matt SCHROEDER, Plaintiff, v. Glenn KOCHANOWSKI, et. al Defendants.

No. 03-4108-JAR.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

March 31, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Matt Schroeder, Hunter, KS, pro se.

John P. Woolf, Triplett, Woolf & Garretson, LLC, Sean C. Brennan, Accident Recovery Team PA, Wichita, KS, M. J. Willoughby, Office of Judicial Administration, Stephen O. Phillips, Kansas Attorney General, Topeka, KS, Mark A. Rondeau, Watkins, Calcara, Rondeau, Friedeman, Bleeker, Glendenning & McVay, Chtd., Great Bend, KS, Robert A. Martin, Norton, Wasserman, Jones & Kelly, Salina, KS, Wendell F. Cowan, Jr., Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Overland Park, KS, Michael T. Jilka, for Defendants.

OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

ROBINSON, District Judge.

This is an action filed by Plaintiff Matt Schroeder pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, acting pro se, against various judicial officers, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel in their official and private capacities, as well as against other individuals in their private capacities, all arising out of the investigation, arrest, prosecution and acquittal of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint also mentions claims that may be construed as state law causes of action. The 20 defendants have filed motions to dismiss raising a myriad of infirmities in Plaintiff's claims, including personal and subject matter jurisdiction, Eleventh Amendment, statute of limitations, absolute or qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. For the multiple reasons set forth below, the Court grants each defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court further denies Plaintiff's various Motions to Strike the motions to dismiss, as these motions to strike are in essence a response to defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Court has fully considered the motions to strike as substantive responses. The Court further denies Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Dye and denies Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Robert Martin, who is counsel for Defendants Dye, Tien and Samples.

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

In the Complaint, Plaintiff offers an expository on his status as a "real, live, breathing, flesh and bone, thoughtful and Godly man" and his "Notice of Expatriation and Declaration of Independence," in which he declares the right to "expatriate absolutely my res in trust to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia a democracy, and return to the Kingdom of God or to the Republic." Plaintiff offers a list of definitions of various words and terms, and further provides a "Notice of Foreign Law" and a "Notice of Classified Information," as well as various other notices that seemingly assert his status and legal relationship, if any, to the United States of America. Plaintiff further states that this Court has jurisdiction of this action "[u]nder your Title 28 U.S.C., section 1331... (and).... section 1332."

Plaintiff's Complaint includes a section entitled "Facts of the Case." The Court recognizes that it should construe a pro se litigant's pleadings liberally, with a less stringent standard than pleadings drawn by attorneys;¹ if the pro se plaintiff's complaint reasonably can be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements."² "At the same time, we do not believe it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant."³ Nor is the court to "supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint."⁴

With these standards in mind, the Court summarizes Plaintiff's Complaint as follows. In May 2001, Plaintiff went to the Farmers and Ranchers Livestock Commission in Salina, Kansas for the purpose of picking up a check for a man he knew as "Randall Senters." As soon as Plaintiff received the check, he was surrounded by Defendant Henry, who was a detective with the Saline County Sheriff's Office, as well as several other individuals. Defendant Mike Samples, the owner of the Livestock Commission was present and witnessed Defendant Henry tell Plaintiff that he was taking him downtown for questioning. At the sheriff's office, Defendant Henry was joined by Defendant Deines, who was an investigator with the Kansas Brand Inspection Division of Animal Health. Defendants Henry and Deines questioned Plaintiff, using abusive language and demeanor, and refused Plaintiff's request to make a phone call. Plaintiff was placed in the Saline County jail. Defendant Trembley was a "jailer" at that facility and refused Plaintiff's requests for something to eat and for permission to make a phone call. After Plaintiff ate his "cold lunch" and took a nap, Defendant Trembley again refused his request to make a phone call, unless Plaintiff cooperated with the investigating officers.

Later that day, Defendant Bohl, a Norton County Sheriff's deputy, and Defendant Burke, another investigator from the Division of Animal Health, took custody of Plaintiff and transported him to Norton County. Plaintiff was told that the Saline County Attorney would not prosecute him, since charges were to be filed in Norton County. After being transported to Norton County, Mirandized⁵ again, and refusing to speak or cooperate, Plaintiff was handed a complaint signed by Defendant Thomson, who was the Norton County Sheriff. The complaint charged Plaintiff with possession of stolen cattle. It alleged that Plaintiff, using the alias of Randy Senters, had consigned stolen cattle at the Farmers and Ranchers Livestock Commission.

Plaintiff spent the night in the Norton County jail, suffering from a migraine after his request for medication was refused by the unnamed "jailer." The next morning, Plaintiff was taken before Defendant Brown, the magistrate judge who arraigned him on the Norton County charges. After Defendant Brown set a $2000 bond and allegedly told Plaintiff that he could pay the bond with two $1000 checks, personnel in the Norton County sheriff's office refused Plaintiff's wife's tender of two $1000 checks.

Plaintiff later learned that while he was in jail over three days, Defendant Dougherty, who was the Mitchell County Sheriff, as well as Defendant Burke and others, were on Plaintiff's land, without permission or a search warrant, conducting an investigation. These law enforcement personnel caused Plaintiff's cattle to escape from his pasture, resulting in the death of a calf, the loss of one cow and four other calves, and some trouble rounding the remaining cattle back to his pasture.

After Plaintiff did not appear for a court appearance in front of Defendant Brown, which he attributes to his not getting notice of the hearing, Defendant Brown revoked his bond at the request of Defendant Sebelius, the Norton County Attorney. Defendant Burke testified at the preliminary hearing on the Norton County charges. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Burke's testimony was false and fabricated, and that Burke similarly testified falsely in the jury trial. Defendant Tien, who was the owner of the Norton County Livestock Sales Commission, also testified at trial. Plaintiff denied ever being in possession of cattle in Norton County. Plaintiff was acquitted by the jury.

Before the trial, Defendant Sebelius, the Norton County Attorney, had written a letter to the Saline County Attorney urging Saline County to file charges against Plaintiff for receiving stolen property in Saline County, "particularly in light of the fact that my case lacks strong evidence that he possessed the stolen goods in Norton County." After Plaintiff was acquitted, Defendant Sebelius again wrote Defendant Mitchell, the Saline County Attorney, urging her to pursue charges against Plaintiff, and noting that "I anticipated that it would be difficult to convict him in this county due to our inability to place him positively in Norton County on May 10, 2001, the date of the theft."

Thereafter, charges were filed against Plaintiff in Saline County by Defendant Mitchell. Those charges were ultimately dismissed by Defendant Hebert, a judge in Saline County. That dismissal was appealed by Defendant Cunning, an Assistant County Attorney in Saline County. Among the damages that Plaintiff details in his complaint are his charges for the "illegal towing and impound storage charges" for his son's seized truck that he had to pay to Salina Wrecker Service, which is owned by Defendant Dye.

In the body of the Complaint, Plaintiff identifies 15 of the 20 defendants by name: Henry, Samples, Deines, Trembley, Bohl, Burke, Thomson, Brown, Dougherty, Sebelius, Tien, Mitchell, Hebert, Cunning and Dye. However, five defendants, Kochanowski, Engel, Teagarden, Augustine and Meyer are not identified nor mentioned in the body of the Complaint. From their various motions to dismiss, the Court has learned that Defendant Kochanowski was the Saline County Sheriff; Defendant Engel was the Clerk of the Norton County District Court; Defendant Teagarden was an employee of the Kansas Brand Inspection, Division of Animal Health; Defendant Augustine was a Captain in the Saline County Sheriff's office; and Defendant Meyer was the owner of the Sylvan Sales Commission. But in the Complaint, Plaintiff neither mentions these five defendants by name, nor references how they allegedly violated his rights in a way actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants arrested him without a warrant and seized property without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. He further alleges that the defendants violated the Fifth Amendment by arresting him without a warrant, interrogating him without counsel being present, and...