-RBC Leadbetter et al v. Parkview Hospital et al, No. 1:2010cv00348 - Document 3 (N.D. Ind. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING case pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Michael C Leadbetter and JoEllen E Teusch are CAUTIONED that if they file any other frivolous or malicious papers in this Court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 10/20/2010. (lns) Modified on 10/20/2010 (lns).

Download PDF
-RBC Leadbetter et al v. Parkview Hospital et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION MICHAEL C. LEADBETTER and JoELLEN E. TEUSCH, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) PARKVIEW HOSPITAL and PARK CENTER, ) ) Defendants. ) CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-348 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a complaint filed by Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch. For the reasons set forth below, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch are CAUTIONED that if they file any other frivolous or malicious papers in this court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. BACKGROUND In Leadbetter v. Parkview Hospital, 1:10-CV-313 (N.D. Ind. filed September 7, 2010), Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch filed a pro se complaint that was dismissed with prejudice because it was frivolous. On October 7, 2010, they filed this pro se complaint (along with an incomplete and unsigned in forma pauperis petition) against the same defendants based on the same claims. Dockets.Justia.com DISCUSSION In its prior order, this Court found that these claims were delusional. See Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002). Though phrased slightly different in this complaint, the claims are still delusional. In addition, they are also barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they were or could have been brought in the prior case which was dismissed with prejudice only last month on September 14, 2010. See Highway J Citizens Group v. United States DOT, 456 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2006). These cases are not the only meritless filings that these two plaintiffs have presented to this court. In Teusch v. U.S. Attorney General, 1:08-CV-002, this court dismissed their complaint which alleged that the Attorney General’s “failure to prosecute the City of Fort Wayne makes the Attorney General’s office a party to ‘governmental level conspiracies’ against them involving the President as well as the Vice President’s Office.” Id., DE 3 at 3. Recently, they filed a “Notice of State Terrorism and Conspiracy Against Rights” in two of their other closed cases. See Leadbetter v. United States, 1:06-CV-285 (N.D. Ind. filed August 15, 2006), and Teusch v. City of Fort Wayne, 1:09-CV-064 (N.D. Ind. filed March 12, 2009). In that filing, they included three judges of this court, including the undersigned conspiracies against them. -2- judge, as a part of the It is past time for Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch to stop wasting this court’s time with frivolous filings. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 185 n. 8 (1989) citing In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254, 1261 (2nd Cir. 1984). Therefore, if either of them file any more frivolous or malicious papers in this court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch are CAUTIONED that if they file any other frivolous or malicious papers in this court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. DATED: October 20, 2010 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United State District Court -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.