Fiechtner v. Camden County Probation Division

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