9:13-cv-00039 | D. Mont. | Mar 4, 2013
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT /460
4
0
MISSOULA DIVISION °’@q ” 206
CHARLES ADAM FIECHTNER, SR.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
SUSAN YOUNG, and
HELP POINT CLAIM SERVICES,
and
SHERIFF, et al.
and
VERIZON,
and
FBI,
and
MISSOULA, MONTANA POLICE,
and
GEICO INSURANCE,
and
CV 13-9-M-DLC-JCL
ORDER
CV 13 - 1 O-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-1 l-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-12-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-13-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-14-M-DLC-JCL
VICTIM COMPENSATION and
STEVE BULLOCK,
and
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and
MISSOULA, MONTANA IRS,
and
JOHN REED,
and
MAYOR JOHN ENGEN,
and
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Comrnissioner,
Social Security Administration,
and
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA, and
KAREN WEIGAND,
and
STATE OF MONTANA,
STATE TROOPER, and
KAREN ORZECH,
and
JOHN REED, CARAS, and
SUSAN YOUNG,
CV 13-19-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-20-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-21-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-22-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-23 -M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-24-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-25_M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-26-M-DLC-JCL
and
WHITE HOUSE,
JOHN BOEHNER,
and
MICHEAL JAMES SMITH,
and
JEREMIAH C. LYNCH,
and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
SURCHARGE VIOLATION SYSTEM,
and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
PENNSAUKEN POLICE,
CHERYL DUFFY, and
CHIEF COFFE,
and
JUDGE FOX,
and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
DAVE KUNKEL, and
CLEMENTON POLICE,
and
CV 13 -27-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13 -2 8-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13 -29-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13 -3 5-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-36-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-37-M-DLC-JCL
CV 13-38-M-DLC-JCL
CAMDEN COUNTY PROBATION CV 13-39-M-DLC-JCL
DIVISION, CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,
5 EXECUTIVES, AMANDA WALTON,
LINDA BROOKS, and CHRIS REILLY,
and
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL, CV 13-40-M-DLC-JCL
WARDEN, and PRISON GUARDS,
and
FHA, and CV 13-41-M~DLC-JCL
JOHN ELLISON,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendation on February 6, 2013, recommending dismissal of Plaintiff
Charles Fiechtner’s complaints in the 24 actions named above because his
allegations are frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Judge Lynch further recommended Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant
subject to a pre-filing order limiting his future litigation activities. Plaintiff did
not timely object to the Findings and Recommendation in any action, and so has
waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell
Douglas Co;p. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309" date_filed="1981-08-31" court="9th Cir." case_name="McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Commodore Business MacHines Inc. And Commodore Business MacHines (Canada) Limited">656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “def`inite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422" date_filed="2000-12-13" court="9th Cir." case_name="United States v. Robert Louis Syrax, AKA Bob Johnson, AKA Robert L. Syrax">235 F.3d 422, 427
(9th Cir. 2000).
Judge Lynch correctly determined he was not required to recuse himself
from this case despite Plaintiff’s allegations against him in CV 13-29-DLC-JCL.
“A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him or by
a litigant's intemperate and scurrilous attacks.” United States v. Stua’ley, 783 F.2d
934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs allegations relate
only to Judge Lynch’s role in presiding over his prior legal actions in this Court,
and are barred by judicial immunity. He was not required to recuse himself from
Plaintiff s case.
Plaintiff’s prior actions commenced in January and February of 2011 were
frivolous and dismissed for failure to state a claim or for improper venue despite
giving Plaintiff ample notice and time to cure the defects of his actions. Plaintiffs
current 24 actions also qualify as frivolous because his allegations are delusional,
fanciful, and lack an arguable basis in fact or 1aw. Denton v. Hernana’ez, 504 U.S.
25, 32-33 (1992). A pre-filing injunctive order is warranted in this case because
Plaintiff s conduct in the 35 cases he has filed in the previous two years is
frivolous and constitutes harassment as outlined in detail by Judge Lynch.
DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144" date_filed="1990-08-30" court="9th Cir." case_name="Steven De Long v. Michael Hennessey">912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). A review of Judge
Lynch’s findings and recommendations reveals no clear error. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendation (docs.
2) are adopted in full in each action identified in the above caption. The 24 actions
identified in the caption above are DISMISSED and judgment shall be entered
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and his
litigation activities are limited as follows:
1. Fiechtner is barred from filing the following actions in this Court:
a. any action with vague, conclusory, irrational, delusional,
incomprehensible, or fanciful allegations;
b. any action which fails to set forth adequately supported,
non-conclusory, short and plain statements of his claims
showing he is entitled to relief as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(3);
c. any action alleging defendants have prevented him from
becoming the President of the United States or a “star
inventor”; and
d. any action asserting conclusory allegations that defendants
caused Fiechtner to sustain millions, billions, trillions, or
zillions of dollars in damages.
2. Should Fiechtner file any further actions, they should be filed in a
miscellaneous civil case entitled In re Charles Aa’am Fiechtner, Sr.
and assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch.
Judge Lynch will review all such filings under appropriate standards
and applicable laws to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether
the pleading should be filed as a ci action and allowed to proceed.
. 4a
DATED this day of March, 2013. z '~
Dana L. Christensen, District 'Judge
United States District Court