The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, District Judge.
A serial litigant in the making.
This Court will not tolerate meritless, repetitive, or
Motion to dismiss allowed.
Plaintiff Kenneth R. Terpening II has filed the
above-captioned case, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that certain current and former government officials, along with
certain employees of a shelter for abused women, have engaged in
"mischief, mayhem, domestic terror, [and] attempted murder." In
his Complaint, Terpening alleges that his claim arises out of
the former Pike County State's Attorney's handling of a criminal
case (and the events which subsequently transpired) in which a
"political lackey" allegedly molested his [Terpening's]
children. Terpening's Complaint also includes allegations that
Defendants have fabricated criminal charges against him, have
sought and received bogus orders of protection against him, have
robbed him, have planted evidence in order to incriminate him,
and have engaged in conduct aimed at driving him to commit
suicide as they have with others.
In support of this Complaint, Terpening has attached documents
from seven separate state court cases which he has filed against
various Defendants and documents concerning a complaint which he
has made to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board. All of the
attached documents arise out of the same sequence of events of
which Terpening now complains in support of his § 1983 action.
In response, Defendants Marla Ferguson, Brandi Sheppard, and
Pat Waters have filed a motion asking the Court to dismiss
Terpening's Complaint, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to
state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against
them. Ferguson, Sheppard, and Waters each note that Terpening's
Complaint fails to make a single reference to any act of
omission or commission committed by them which allegedly
deprived him of a Constitutional right. In fact, Ferguson,
Sheppard, and Waters point out that the Complaint does not
mention them at all except for including them in the caption of
the case. Accordingly, Ferguson, Sheppard, and Waters ask the
Court to dismiss this case against them.
Likewise, Defendants Judge Richard D. Greenlief and Judge
Michael R. Roseberry have filed a motion asking the Court to
dismiss Terpening's Complaint against them for failure to state
a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. In addition,
Judges Greenlief and Roseberry argue that Terpening's claim
against them is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, by
the doctrine of res judicata, and by the Eleventh Amendment.
Accordingly, Judges Greenlief and Roseberry ask the Court to
dismiss this case against them for one or all of these reasons.
Finally, the other Defendants named as parties in this case by
Terpening have not responded, in any way, to his Complaint.
However, the Court finds no evidence in the record to establish
that Terpening has effected proper service of process upon
them.*fn1 In any event, the Court's holding in this Order
applies equally to all Defendants.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court "must accept well
pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. In addition, the
Court must view these allegations in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff." Gomez v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ.,
811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir. 1987). Although a complaint is not required
to contain a detailed outline of the claim's basis, it
nevertheless "must contain either direct or inferential
allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to
sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Car
Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir.
1984). Mere conclusions, without supporting factual allegations,
are insufficient to support a claim for relief. Cohen v.
Illinois Inst. of Tech., 581 F.2d 658, 663 (7th Cir. 1978).
Dismissal should not be ...