The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID COAR, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a multi-defendant case originally brought by three
Plaintiff's: Timothy Wesley Wingate ("Wingate"), Mark Sato ("Sato"), and
Mark Enoch Sate ("Enoch Sato"). Wingate, Sato, and Enoch Sato filed their
Complaint in November 2002 against several Illinois municipalities and
officers of the State of Illinois. On June 5, 2003, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff Sato from the Complaint and struck all allegations therein that
were specific to him in keeping with prior litigation sanctions. See
Skolnick. Sato & Andreuccetti v. Doria, No. 94-3238, Order of
April 4, 1997 (7th Cir. 1997); Sato v. Plunkett. 94 C 60,
Order of May 2, 1994 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (Easterbrook, J.); id.,
Order of March 15, 1994 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Sato v. Kwasny,
1993 U.S. District Lexis 15693 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 5, 1993).
The case comes now before the Court on several Motions filed by the
Defendants. Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state
a claim have been filed by the Defendant City of Elgin; Defendant Village
of Hanover Park; and Defendant City of Elmhurst. Defendant City of
Elmhurst has also moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for
failure to provide effective service of process. Defendant Joseph
Birkett has filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint under
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a Motion for Sanctions
under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's
received permission from the Court to file a consolidated response to
these motions. The motions are all fully briefed and ripe for decision.
I. MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the Court "must accept all well pleaded allegations as true.
In addition, the Court must view these allegations in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff." Gomez v. Illinois State Board of
Education. 811 F.2d 1030, 1039 (7th Cir. 1987). A party's claim
should only be dismissed if it is clear that no set of facts in support
of the claim would entitle the party to relief. Ledford v.
Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 356 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Hishon v.
King & Spaulding. 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)).
Plaintiffs' Complaint is inscrutable. The Complaint first alleges that
this Court is not organized under Article III of the Constitution. (Pl.
Comp, at 6-8). It asserts that the District Court "is a political and
constitutional oxymoron." (Pl, Comp, at 14). It goes on to blankly assert
violations of the following of Plaintiffs' rights: Plaintiffs' right to
freedom of speech under the First Amendment (Pl. Comp, at 9);
Plaintiffs' "innumerable rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments
dependent upon the right to travel" (id.); Plaintiffs' "4th
Amendment right of sanctity of home and/or person against unwarranted
search and/or seizure "(id.); Plaintiffs' "common law right to
pursuit of happiness free from unlawful interference" (id.);
Plaintiffs' "common law right to due process" (id.);
Plaintiffs'" right to have public servants
obey public policy constraints" (Id. at 9-10);
Plaintiffs' "right to the protections of the separation of powers
doctrine" (Id. at 10); and Plaintiffs' right to religious
liberty (id.). Few, if Any, of these allegations are
supported with any specific factual allegation in the Complaint.
The Court can find (with some difficulty) the following factual
allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Wingate is a founding participant
of an organization known as the American Rights Movement, or ARM. Wingate
organized ARM in January or February 2001 "for the purpose of
articulating [Wingate's] political vies and to exercise his right of
association with like-minded persons." (Pl. Comp, at 19). Wingate,
through ARM, became involved in efforts to expose alleged political
corruption in the State's Attorneys Office in early 2002. In July 2002,
Elmhurst Police "trumped up a charge" against Wingate's daughter Anne.
(Pl. Comp, at 22).
Several years earlier, in 1996, Wingate was issued a traffic citation
for driving while his driver's license was suspended. The case number
assigned to the incident was 96 TR 148974. When Wingate refused to
identify himself to the Court, a bench warrant issued for his arrest. The
Complaint alleges that this bench warrant imposed "the artificial status
of `driver'" upon Wingate and justified "restraint of his liberty," (Pl.
Comp, at 22).
As regards Enoch Sato, the Complaint alleges that Defendants have all
been using Enoch Sato "as a means of applying extortionate leverage"
against Sato to "cease and desist in his campaign to expose the
criminality" in the State's Attorneys Office. (PL Comp, at 23). The
Defendants allegedly conspired to "inveigle Enoch Sato in the Traffic
Court Enterprise." (Id.) Defendants have also "falsely imposed
upon EnochSato the status of `driver' . . . as a means of blackmailing
his father [Sato]."(Id. at 24). Enoch Sato has apparently been
twice issued traffic
citations by agents of the City of Elgin, and his cases have been
assigned numbers 01 TR 41259 and 01 TR 7443.
The Complaint proceeds to allege that the Illinois Traffic Courts
provide support "for A specific religious sect, namely, the
Masons." (Id. at 26). From there, the Complaint descends even
deeper into a bizarre conspiracy theory that does not merit reproduction.
One general background assumption of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that the
traffic courts in Illinois operate illegally and are ultra vires. The
Illinois Motor Vehicle Code authorizes municipal corporations to adopt
and enforce any or all of the Motor Vehicle Code. 625 I.L.C.S. 5/20-204.
Consequently, the traffic courts in Elgin, Elmhurst, and Hanover Park are
all legitimate entities under state law.
This Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief could be
granted as to any of the Defendants it names. The most coherent theory
that the Court could draw from this Complaint is that Wingate and Enoch
Sato are being harrassed on the basis of the exercise of their First
Amendment rights. As to Wingate, the right would be freedom of speech in
association with his political activities in ARM. As to Enoch Sato (who
is not alleged to be a participant in ARM), it is unclear what the
unconstitutional basis for the harrassment would be.
For either Plaintiff, the Complaint does not allege any specific
relationship between their traffic arrests (or their daughter's traffic
arrests, as in Wingate's case) and Wingate's political activities in ARM.
Based on a fair and thorough reading of Plaintiffs' Complaint, it does
not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The conclusory
allegations of conspiracy in this case are not sufficient to provide fair
notice to any of the ...