ILNews

Judge cautions about filing frivolous suits

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northern District judge has warned two litigants that if they keep filing frivolous lawsuits they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.

Plaintiffs Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch have filed several lawsuits in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of Indiana in which they allege there’s a large conspiracy involving government and private entities that are part of a “criminal gang” focused on persecuting Leadbetter and Teusch. They even claimed three judges of the Northern District, including Judge Rudy Lozano, are a part of the conspiracy.

The latest complaint filed Oct. 7 alleges Parkview Hospital and Park Center Inc., along with the Fort Wayne Police Department, Fort Wayne City Attorney, and the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office and other entities conspired to deny Teusch medical treatment after she attempted suicide. The two also alleged sometime in the past, Teusch was drugged, confined, and repeatedly raped by a police officer, but was then abducted by others who “cleaned, sterilized, and reclothed” her.

The October suit, Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch v. Parkview Hospital, et al., No. 1:10-CV-348, is similar to the one dismissed in September for being frivolous.

Judge Lozano found the instant case to also be frivolous, noting the claims, although phrased slightly different, are still delusional.

“It is past time for Michael C. Leadbetter and JoEllen E. Teusch to stop wasting this court’s time with frivolous filings,” wrote the judge. “Therefore, if either of them file any more frivolous or malicious papers in this court, they may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT