Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amrhein v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

September 6, 2017

DARLENE C. AMRHEIN
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

          MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          AMOS L. MAZZANT & UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 23, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #12) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff Darlene C. Amrhein's First Amended Petition/ Pleadings from Original Petition with Stated Claims, Elements, Case Law & Specific Details as the Court Ordered & Pleads for Relief (“Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. #11) be dismissed. Having received the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #12), having considered each of Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. #17), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's report (Dkt. #12) as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

         BACKGROUND

         The underlying facts are set out in further detail by the Magistrate Judge and need not be repeated here in their entirety (see Dkt. #12). Accordingly, the Court sets forth herein only those facts pertinent to Plaintiff's objections.

         Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 31, 2016, and contemporaneously filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #4). The Court provisionally granted the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting forth “(1) [t]he basis for this Court's jurisdiction over this litigation; (2) [e]ach claim/cause of action Plaintiff alleges or intends to allege[, ] . . . specifically identify[ing] which claims/causes of action are asserted against which Defendants in this litigation; [and] (3) [t]he specific factual allegations regarding each Defendant for each claim asserted” (Dkt. #6). Plaintiff thereafter filed the Amended Complaint (the live pleading in this matter) on November 15, 2016 (Dkt. #11), naming over 160 defendants, including Plaintiff's previous employer, certain insurance providers, various attorneys, judges, and judicial staff, and numerous governmental entities and agents.

         Plaintiff's claims stem from disputes between Plaintiff and her prior employer, La Madeleine, Inc. Plaintiff alleges La Madeleine and its employees mistreated her at work, caused her to suffer on-the-job injuries, and subsequently refused to pay for certain medical procedures Plaintiff attempted to claim under her employee insurance plan, among other things (see, e.g., Dkt. #11 at 1, 6-7, 11-13, 20, 29 (asserting claims against La Madeleine, Inc., other employees who worked with Plaintiff, and other entities allegedly associated with La Madeleine, Inc.)). Plaintiff raises claims related to the purported denial of insurance against certain insurance companies and their agents, as well as against certain physicians. Plaintiff asserts each of these persons and entities worked to deprive her of insurance benefits guaranteed through her employer (see, e.g., Dkt. #11 at 1-3, 6-7, 11-13). Additionally, Plaintiff makes various allegations against lawyers, judges, and court staff associated with the 1996 state court litigation she initiated on these same claims and prosecuted unsuccessfully (through numerous appeals) for years (see Dkt. #11, Exhibits 18-24, 26-34, 37-38). See also, e.g., Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc. (Amrhein State), No. 06-12-00107-CV, 2013 WL 839227, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana, Mar. 6, 2013, pet. denied) (the state court case and appeals thereon are hereinafter and collectively referred to as the “Amrhein State litigation”).

         In the Amrhein State litigation, Plaintiff “initially sued La Madeleine, Inc., for failing to provide a safe workplace, alleging primarily that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome from the repetitive motion of tossing or mixing salads over a period of less than five months.” Amrhein State, 2013 WL 839227, at *1. After Plaintiff lost in the trial court (and following numerous appeals and remands), Plaintiff raised a vast number of issues on appeal related to what Plaintiff perceived as improper court procedure and treatment of her claims in the trial court (see Dkt. #12 at 3 (citing Amrhein State, 2013 WL 839227, at *1-2)). The state appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, specifically noting Plaintiff's “incomprehensible” briefing could “accurately be described as a fifty-page denunciation of perceived slights by the legal system and [Plaintiff's] belief that because she has not prevailed, the system has treated her unfairly at every turn.” Amrhein State, 2013 WL 839227, at *2. The Texas Supreme Court denied review on February 7, 2014. Prior to the Texas Supreme Court's denial through April 22, 2014, when the lower appeals court denied Plaintiff's final motion, Plaintiff repeatedly filed for reconsideration before both the lower appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court. See Case record in Texas Court of Appeals Case No. 06-12-00107-CV.

         On August 16, 2011, while the Amrhein State litigation was ongoing, Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; the Court transferred Plaintiff's case to the Northern District of Texas on August 26, 2011. See Amrhein v. La Madeleine, Inc. (Amrhein NDTX I), No. 3:11-CV-02440-P, 2012 WL 12840376, (N.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2012), aff'd, 589 F. App'x 258 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (the proceedings before the Northern District of Texas and subsequent appeal to the Fifth Circuit are hereinafter referred to as the “Amrhein NDTX I litigation”). In the Amrhein NDTX I litigation, Plaintiff's “employment dispute” at the center of her claims in the Amrhein State litigation “grew into allegations against all branches of government for the State of Texas[, ]” including various judges, their staff, legislators, and executive branch members. Id. at *1. Plaintiff also named various attorneys allegedly involved in the Amrhein State litigation as defendants in the Amrhein NDTX I litigation. Id. The Northern District dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, finding Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Id. at *3-4.

         In the instant action, Plaintiff now raises for the third time all of the same claims she raised in the Amrhein NDTX I litigation, and has appended claims against every member of the judiciary remotely associated with the Amrhein NDTX I litigation, as well as their staff and any attorney representing other parties to that litigation (see, e.g., Dkt. #11 at 1-4, 8-10). Further, Plaintiff attempts to raise claims against various members of Congress, the federal executive branch, and every justice of the United States Supreme Court (see, e.g., Dkt. #11 at 9-10). Specifically, Plaintiff raises the same claims of conspiracies, frauds, and biased judges who worked with attorneys representing other parties (as well as many entities and members of the federal and Texas state governments) to deny her fair proceedings and to cause her damages as a result. These claims, which Texas state courts and the Northern District of Texas court have in large part already considered and dismissed, are now before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (“Section 1915”). For ease of reference, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's grouping of Defendants (more fully identified in the margin) into three primary sets, namely: (1) the Northern District of Texas Defendants;[1] (2) the Related Defendants;[2] and (3) the Federal Lawsuit Defendants.[3] (To the extent the Court has inadvertently omitted any named defendant in the lists included herein, the Court clarifies that this Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge addresses all named defendants and all claims raised by Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint.)

         The Magistrate Judge also noted and the Court reiterates here Plaintiff's prior litigation history: she has filed more than six suits before numerous Texas state and federal courts (including this one), and courts have dismissed each of these cases for frivolousness and/or for failure to comply with basic pleading or procedural requirements. See, e.g., Amrhein State, 2013 WL 839227; Amrhein NDTX I, 2012 WL 12840376; Balistreri v. Remax Realty, No. 05-10-00611-CV, 2011 WL 149984, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Jan. 19, 2011) (pet. denied); Balistreri-Amrhein v. AHI, No. 05-09-01377-CV, 2012 WL 3100775, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 6, 2011) (pet denied); Amrhein-Macon v. Wood, No. 2-05-158-CV, 2005 WL 1654762, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 14, 2005) (pet. denied); Amrhein v. Riechert, No. 3:12-CV-03707-G-BK, 2013 WL 1155473, at *13-14 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:12-CV-3707-G BK, 2013 WL 1174571 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) (Amrhein NDTX II); Balistreri-Amrhein v. Verrilli, No. 4:16-CV-112, 2017 WL 726919, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2017). After reviewing these prior cases, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's observation that, in each of these Clerk Advisor Jacob C. Travers; Supreme Court Clerks Scott S. Harris and James Atkinson, United States of America; President Barack Hussein Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, United States Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr., United States Attorney General Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, United States Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas; John R. Parker (Northern District); Malcolm Bales (U.S. Attorney's Office); Federal Bureau of Investigation; FBI Director James B. Comey; United States Senate Judiciary Committee; Judiciary Senate Chairman Charles E. “Chuck” Grassley, United States House Judiciary Committee; Judiciary House Chairman Robert Bob Goodlatte; Ted Cruz (U.S. Senator and Senate Judicial Chairman), John Cornyn (U.S. Senator and Senate Judicial Committee); United States Senate (114th Congress), United States House (114th Congress); Administrative Office of United States Courts, Office of General Counsel, United States Attorneys Office (Malcolm Bales), Texas Office of Court Administration, Dan Patrick (Texas Lt. Governor), Texas Ethics Commission, Texas Workers Compensation Division, Robert Shipe & Richard F. Reynolds, Texas Senate; Texas Senate Members, City of Dallas, Mayor of Dallas Mike Rawlings, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, Dallas City Hall, Dallas County District Attorney's Office (Susan Hawk), and Dallas City Council & Members. These defendants are hereinafter and collectively referred to as “the Federal Lawsuit Defendants.” Plaintiff attempts to raise claims against each of these defendants that are in some manner related to the Amrhein NDTX I litigation. cases, Plaintiff “has filed flurries of largely incomprehensible motions, letters, and other requests for relief both prior to and following the respective court's disposition of her claims” and that courts have previously admonished Plaintiff for such behavior (Dkt. #12 at 6). Indeed, as a result of Plaintiff's contumacious filing conduct in a case before the Northern District, the Northern District Court found entry of a broad pre-filing injunction appropriate:

Darlene Amrhein is prohibited from filing any new civil action in any United States district court unless she first files a motion requesting leave of court to do so and attaches thereto copies of (1) her proposed complaint, (2) the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions and recommendation in this case, (3) this court's order accepting the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and (4) the judgment in this case.

Amrhein NDTX II, 2013 WL 1155473, at *13-14; report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:12-CV-3707-G BK, 2013 WL 1174571 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) (hereinafter the “Pre-Filing Injunction”). This Court has also recently examined Plaintiff's prolific filing history and Plaintiff's continued failure to comply with the Northern District of Texas Pre-Filing Injunction. See Balistreri-Amrhein, No. 4:16-cv-112, 2017 WL 726919, at *5-6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2017) (hereinafter “Amrhein EDTX I”).

         Following review of Plaintiff's litigation history and screening the instant claims under Section 1915, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation on June 23, 2017 (Dkt. #12), recommending Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice. On July 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's 108 Objections & Points of Error for “Good ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.