Sherman H. Skolnick v. Albert E. Hallett and Harry G. Fins
Sherman H. SKOLNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Albert E. HALLETT and Harry G. Fins, Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff has appeared pro se throughout this litigation including the presenting of the oral argument.
Defendant Hallett is a judge of the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois. Defendant Harry G. Fins is a long-time member of the Illinois Bar with offices in the city of Chicago, Illinois.
Plaintiff’s complaint charges that defendants conducted a “kangaroo court” with him as a victim. Plaintiff complains that in a state court proceeding, the defendants intimidated and slandered him.
The basis for many of the charges against defendants is that Judge Hallett had no jurisdiction to hold court on April 14, 1964, which was primary election day in Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff was wrong in this assumption. Ill.Rev.Stats.1963, Chap. 46, Sections 2-12 and 17-25. Richter v. Chicago & Erie Railroad Co., 273 Ill. 625 , 113 N.E. 153 .
The District Court found and held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and should be dismissed.
The District Court also found and held the complaint was replete with scurrilous, offensive • and objectionable allegations principally leveled at Judge Hallett, and should not be permitted to remain of record.
We agree that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and under Rule 12(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court was fulljr warranted in striking the complaint.
There is a marked similarity between the complaint in this case and the complaint in No. 14878, Peter S. Sarelas v. John J. Lupe. From the record in this case it appears that Sarelas has acted as attorney for plaintiff. In case No. 14878, the charge was that state court Judge Lupe had held a “kangaroo court.” Many paragraphs of the complaint in Sarelas are identical or substantially identical with paragraphs in the complaint in the case at bar. The Sarelas case was affirmed from the bench on May 25, 1965.
The complaint in the instant case is entirely without merit.
The judgment of the District Court is Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the district court was “fully warranted in striking” a pro se complaint, which “was replete with scurrilous, offensive and objectionable allegations principally leveled at [the state court judge]” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)
-
(striking a complaint in which plaintiff alleges that defendants conducted a ‘kangaroo court’ with him as a victim)
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.