Zuelke v. Zuelke
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-00497
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Zuelke v. Zuelke, Judge Wright dismissed Bryan Zuelke’s lawsuit without prejudice because the pleading showed no basis for federal jurisdiction.
Bryan Zuelke, whose lawsuit against six named defendants was dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Zuelke v. Zuelke, Bryan Zuelke filed a 52-page collection of documents and named six defendants: Daryl Zuelke, Travis Root, Christy Schwichtenberg, Katherine Donovan, Scott Congdon, and Deborah Zuelke. He represented himself.
The court said the filing did not state a basis for federal jurisdiction or clearly identify Zuelke’s claims. It referred to a federal criminal statute that did not provide jurisdiction for this lawsuit. The court also found the filing incoherent and frivolous because it did not present specific allegations or recognizable legal claims.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court also explained that the filing failed to provide the short and plain statements required by the federal civil rules.
The detailed version
- Zuelke v. Zuelke · No. 0:22-cv-00497
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Mar. 24, 2022
Background
Bryan Zuelke filed a pleading while representing himself. The court received it on February 28, 2022. The filing included 52 pages of documents and named Daryl Zuelke, Travis Root, Christy Schwichtenberg, Katherine Donovan, Scott Congdon, and Deborah Zuelke as defendants.
Jurisdiction
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a pleading to state the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, the claim showing an entitlement to relief, and the relief requested. The court found that Zuelke’s filing contained no jurisdictional statement and that no source of federal jurisdiction was apparent from the filing.
Zuelke referred to 18 U.S.C. § 351 in the one-page document that began his pleading. The court explained that this statute concerns the murder, kidnapping, or assault of high-level government officials and does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction over this lawsuit. Because Zuelke provided no other basis for jurisdiction, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Pleading Deficiencies and Frivolousness
The court also found that the filing did not satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim. The one-page document did not identify Zuelke’s claims or explain how the accompanying documents related to them. The court stated that it was not required to search through a large collection of documents to find evidence that might support unidentified claims.
The court further held that the pleading was frivolous. It found that the filing did not contain specific allegations against the defendants or cognizable legal claims and was incoherent, including nonsensical references to current and former presidents, Google, and the rights of “all of us good men.”
Disposition
The court dismissed the matter without prejudice. The order identified lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the basis for dismissal and stated that the pleading also failed to meet the federal pleading requirements and was frivolous. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.