UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Kurt Martin, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:13-cv-052 PPS

)

)

NIPSCO et al. )

Defendants. )

ORDER AND OPINION

On January 30, 2013, I dismissed Plaintiff Kurt Martin’s lawsuit sua sponte because I

couldn’t understand what grievance he was asking me to redress. (DE 8.) I gave him leave to

amend because I wanted to give him the opportunity to refile a new complaint if he could

articulate his claims in a way that I could understand. Martin hasn’t taken me up on that second

chance. Instead, he has filed a number of increasingly bizarre “motions” asking me – among

other things – to order a sheriff’s weight in gold to be paid to either him or a friend of his (I can’t

tell which one) (DE 12), to declare that one or more banks have committed cruelty to one of his

friend’s animals (DE 25), and to hold Defendant Northern Trust in violation of the Geneva

Convention for improperly holding prisoners of war. (DE 31.) All in all, there are six motions

pending, four filed by Martin (DE 11; DE 12; DE 15; DE 25), one filed by Defendant St. Joseph

County Board of Commissioners (DE 18), and one filed by Defendant Northern Trust. (DE 26.)

The last two are what I’ll address now. St. Joseph’s asks me to strike Martin’s various

filings and re-dismiss the case, this time with prejudice. Northern Trust requests similar relief. 

As to the first part of what they want, they’re entitled to it. All of Martin’s pending motions are

stricken. With all due respect to Martin, they are simply incomprehensible.

case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 33 filed 05/29/13 page 1 of 3
But I’m a little hesitant to dismiss his case with prejudice (as opposed to its current status

of dismissed without prejudice). Here’s why. The Seventh Circuit is clear that a district court

judges is within his or her right to dismiss a case with prejudice where the plaintiff is incapable

of complying with Rule 8's “short and plain statement” requirement. See, e.g., Garst v.

Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378-79 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Complaints like this are

pestilential, and the district court showed great restraint in wading through four iterations plus

one ‘more definite statement’ before giving up. [The plaintiff] received more judicial attention

than his pleadings deserved.”); see also Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011)

(holding that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a plaintiff repeatedly fails to meet

Rule 8's requirement).

The main problem is that virtually all of the cases in which dismissal with prejudice was

appropriate involve a plaintiff who filed multiple – usually three or more – unintelligible

complaints. Here, Martin has only filed one (though I suppose I could see an argument that

February 20, 2013 Motion to Alter or Amend is best viewed as a second complaint). Therefore,

in perhaps what is an overabundance of caution, I’m going to give him one final opportunity. 

Martin’s case remains dismissed with leave to amend; if he thinks that he can articulate his

grievance so that I can understand it, he is free to try to do so. But I caution Martin that if he

files another incomprehensible pleading, I likely will dismiss the matter with prejudice. I also

may consider taking further action to prevent him from wasting this Court’s time as a vexatious

litigant. See, e.g., In re Chapman, 328 F.3d 903, 904-06 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that it was

proper for a district court judge to refer a vexatious litigant to the district executive committee to

issue a screening injunction on future filings).

2

case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 33 filed 05/29/13 page 2 of 3
Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the Motions to Strike and Dismiss filed by St.

Joseph’s (DE 18) and Northern Trust (DE 26) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. All of Martin’s pending motions (DE 11; DE 12; DE 15; DE 25) are STRICKEN. 

However, his lawsuit remains DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 29, 2013.

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

case 3:13-cv-00052-PPS-CAN document 33 filed 05/29/13 page 3 of 3