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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT