The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Rodica Waivio ("Waivio" or "Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this action against the Board of Trustees University of Illinois at Chicago (the "Board" or "UIC"), Sol Shatz ("Shatz"), Peter Nelson ("Nelson"), and Arnstein & Lehr LLP ("Arnstein" and together with Shatz and Nelson, "Defendants"). Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss pursuant to Rules 11 and 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion under Rule 11 is Denied and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b) is Granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
On December 29, 2006, Waivio filed her initial complaint in this action. Less than four months earlier, Judge Norgle entered an order dismissing with prejudice several consolidated cases between Waivio, UIC and various other parties (including Shatz, Nelson and Arnstein) for Waivio's abuse of the legal process. Seemingly unsatisfied with the result she obtained from Judge Norgle, Waivio then brought this action, which seeks to resurrect the same disputes Waivio has already raised -- or could have raised -- in previous cases.
Waivio's Amended Complaint in this case -- like her "Corrected Second Short Amended Complaint" in Case No. 04 C 3545 before Judge Norgle -- comprises a rambling, disjointed, and almost entirely incomprehensible 203 paragraphs related to UIC's decisions to dismiss her from its graduate program and to deny her financial support and employment with the university. Waivio claims that UIC and its agents discriminated against her based on her disability, national origin and gender. Specifically, Waivio alleges that in early 2004, UIC improperly denied her requests for financial support, denied her requests for employment, and denied her requests for letters of recommendation. Strangely, Waivio also alleges that Arnstein -- UIC's counsel -- retaliated against her for "plaintiff's protected actions and opposition of UIC [sic] unlawful practice" by threatening Waivio with "dismissal of cases." (Am. Cplt. at ¶ 41.) Waivio appears further to allege that UIC's counsel, in the person of Richard Hellerman, caused the death of her unborn child:
[Hellerman] screamed vehemently at plaintiff, inflicted emotional distress, threatened plaintiff with adverse actions, psychologically coercing intimidating her to file response to UIC.motion.dismiss.July8-12,2005. He misinformed, deceived plaintiff. He was full of anger, bitterness, and hostility toward plaintiff. Plaintiff asked him to stop intimidating and threatening her. He instigated plaintiff and created hostile environment against plaintiff by inflicting emotional pain, sufferings. 15-20 days later plaintiffs' baby died.
Waivio seems to be particularly troubled by the manner in which UIC and its counsel treated Julie Grosch ("Grosch"), one of the lawyers representing defendant Educational Testing Services in Case No. 04 C 3545. Essentially, Waivio complains that UIC and its counsel treated Grosch more favorably than they treated Waivio, which Waivio characterizes as "Defendants' discriminatory practice." Id. at ¶ 58-59. Waivio alleges that UIC's counsel, in the persons of Hellerman and Norman Jeddeloh ("Jeddeloh") "proved interested and vehemently interacted with Julie Grosch, (woman, American, non-disabled)" while "[Waivio] was treated very severely as defendant." Id. at ¶ 51, 54. In what the Court can only interpret as an allegation related to the motive for the disparate treatment as between herself and Grosch (because it is almost completely unintelligible), Waivio further alleges that:
Plaintiff's female characteristics are opposite to Grosch; Grosch has long blond hear [sic], Waivio has short brown hear [sic], Grosch is tall, thin, Waivio is short, not thin; Grosch dressed "extravagant cloths," [sic] Waivio dressed uninteresting cloths; [sic] Grosch is beautiful, Waivio is uninteresting; Pursuant Rule 8(e)(2), Defendants misclassified plaintiff as opposite alternative Grosch, inappropriately related plaintiff's actions with their sexual interests. . . . Defendants have specific sexual interest, national origin, non disability, retaliation interests and plaintiff is [or plaintiff was wrongly classified as] related and opposite [regarded as impairment] to their sexual interest national origin, non disability retaliation e [sic] interests, therefore plaintiff was discriminated, refused and suffered adverse actions and effects based on her sexuality or other protected characteristics and protected actions.
Id. at ¶ 61-62. In addition to her allegations related to Defendants' "discriminatory practices," Waivio also includes similarly incomprehensible allegations related to "Plaintiff's Severe Treatment." Specifically, Waivio alleges that:
Defendants refused to treat gently plaintiff. Plaintiff was inappropriately treated as criminal "kill you", unwelcome, unwanted ("physically restrain"), refused, rejected ("yelled obscenity"), defendants regarded plaintiff's protected characteristics as "impairment". Defendants regarded plaintiff's disability as threat, as impairment; Defendants harassed plaintiff based on her sexual characteristics, hostile environment against plaintiff. "Lie in bed", "attempted physically restrain" is insulting, "ashamed court publish". Intimidations are harsh words "kill", "obscenity", "admitted[false]", "abused court proceudre" or "fail to give notice", verbally harassed" "give harsh words", "crazy". Plaintiff's Romanian language is regarded as "obscenity", while plaintiff's disability is regarded as threats, or harsh words, while matters were evident misunderstandings. Plaintiff's genter is regarded as "uncommon" "unsolicited visits or wants plaintiff lie in bed or restrain him". Retaliation is related to plaintiff's state actions or discovery, opposition of unlawful discrimination, when defendants regarded Waivio's protected actions as "impairment", harassing, falsely claiming "abuse process", while barring her actions. All these negatively affected plaintiff's performances or opportunities; plaintiff suffered substantive losses, state actions were dismissed.
Waivio's previous case -- No. 04 C 3545 before Judge Norgle -- sought relief from a variety of defendants for a large range of allegedly discriminatory practices related to Waivio's status as a student and an employee at UIC. Indeed, in her "Corrected Second Short Amended Complaint," filed in August 2005 in that case, Waivio alleged that "plaintiff was almost never evaluated based on her individual merit: she was almost never free from discrimination; the plaintiff was unlawfully discriminated against almost all the time in education and employment." (Exh. A to Mtn. to Dismiss at ¶ 57) (emphasis in original). Judge Norgle's Opinion dismissing that case also reflects that Waivio raised, in the course of litigating that case, her concerns about Grosch and the loss of her unborn child ...