“From Plaintiff’s Astonishingly Verbose Complaint, … the Court Was Able to Extract the Following Relevant Facts”:

A short excerpt from Chief Judge Sara Lioi’s long opinion Tuesday in Deters v. Barrett (S.D. Ohio); the plaintiff is apparently a frequent political candidate, a YouTube commentator, and an attorney who retired after having been suspended (see also this Ohio S. Ct. opinion):

Plaintiff Eric Esquire Deters (“plaintiff”), who claims to be a retired attorney, filed this action pro se against several judges and a state legislator for alleged unlawful conduct implicating plaintiff’s medical malpractice litigation on behalf of his clients…. [P]laintiff’s pleading suffers from various threshold deficiencies that preclude consideration on the merits and require dismissal. As detailed below, plaintiff’s legal claims fail to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. His asserted claims do not meet the requirements of Article III standing. Moreover, many claims are either barred by an applicable immunity or are patently and utterly implausible. The complaint also fails to comply with the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). And plaintiff’s recently filed amended complaint was filed in violation of the time limits established in Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)….

It is not the role of the Court to “search the record and construct arguments[;] [p]arties must do that for themselves.” … Beyond peppering the complaint with extraneous and irrelevant material, plaintiff has also improperly used his pleading to launch personal attacks on defendants and others. Throughout the complaint, plaintiff offers opinions of defendants and their associates untethered to the facts of the case and laced with abusive and charged language. For example, plaintiff alleges that “Defendants’ treatment of the Durrani victims and [him]self is the evil and insidious performance of scoundrels.” He gratuitously adds that “based upon the Defendants’ conduct, no more repugnant human beings have ever served on the judiciary and…the legislature.” Continuing this train of thought, plaintiff charges that “[t]he Defendants, like the Devil, rationalize all their sins. The Defendants have unquenchable thirst to fulfill their scheme with their very souls for sale.” He concludes by opining that “hell awaits the Defendants and their co-conspirators.” {With respect to one individual defendant, plaintiff adds “I hate her. I loathe her. And the world knows why.”}

“Legal pleadings are no place for demeaning and derogatory comments, [and] personal insults[.] They bring public scorn on the legal profession and the judicial system.” No matter how strongly plaintiff believes that his former clients have been wronged, such abusive language has no place in any litigation. Plaintiff is hereby admonished for his unprofessional attacks upon defendants. Should he find himself in federal court in the future, plaintiff would be wise to confine his filings to proper allegations and arguments.

Ultimately, the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint is anything but a “short and plain statement” showing entitlement to relief. Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To attempt to understand plaintiff’s legal claims, the Court was required to parse through a convoluted litany of grievances, irrelevant information, personal attacks, and conclusory allegations against defendants. Such verbosity is unacceptable. Plaintiff, as a former practicing attorney, should be aware of the rules of federal procedure and should draft pleadings that conform to these strictures. It is not the Court’s obligation to unravel the allegations and construct claims against defendants on behalf of a plaintiff….

Here’s the factual backstory, also from the opinion:

Within a voluminous complaint spanning 100 pages and 12 exhibits—including a 531-page book titled “The Butcher of Pakistan” plaintiff brings several causes of action against one federal judge, three present or former Ohio state court justices, and one Ohio-licensed attorney and former state legislator. Plaintiff alleges a grand conspiracy among defendants to sabotage the efforts of plaintiff’s former law firm to obtain successful outcomes in a series of medical malpractice cases brought against Dr. Abubaker Atiq Durrani (“Dr. Durrani”) approximately 13 years ago (collectively referred to as the “Durrani litigation”).

The Durrani litigation consists of claims from former patients of Dr. Durrani, who is alleged to have performed unnecessary spine surgeries on some 580 victims. Dr. Durrani’s fraudulent actions in this regard led to a federal indictment in 2013, after which Dr. Durrani fled the United States and remains at large. Plaintiff’s role in the Durrani litigation is as “the man who finances the Duranni [sic] victims’ battle for over thirteen years, speaks out publicly about their plight, has risked everything [he has] for the Durrani victims’ cause twice and who is appreciated by the 580 Duranni [sic] victims[.]” …

From plaintiff’s astonishingly verbose complaint—replete with personal attacks on defendants and other public figures, commentary on politics and general societal failings, and literary and historical quotes and references—the Court was able to extract the following relevant facts. Plaintiff’s allegations against Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, former Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice Deters, and former Representative William Seitz arise out of plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with a lack of substantive progress in the Durrani litigation. Plaintiff alleges that the Ohio Supreme Court, “led by the now retired Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, followed by the current Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy,” has refused to try his cases expeditiously. In conclusory fashion, he avers that—among many acts of judicial misconduct—Chief Justice O’Connor refused to recuse herself and a trial court judge from the Durrani litigation, failed to follow the Ohio Supreme Court rules in requiring trials within three years, was “bought” by medical and health insurance companies, and ordered “baseless investigations” of attorneys involved in the litigation.

In like conclusory fashion, Chief Justice Kennedy is alleged to be “equally owned by the same group of hospitals, law firms, and insurance companies[,]” disagreed “in not reconsidering” a Durrani case, and “has millions in her campaign coffers from the same groups who gave it to [former Chief Justice O’Connor.]” And former Ohio State Representative Seitz endorsed H.B. 179, a state bill which plaintiff believes will cause Ohio to “become a breeding ground for incompetent foreign doctors who commit malpractice.”

Plaintiff’s allegations against Judge Barrett concern actions taken by Judge Barrett in federal court proceedings over which he presided, including Dr. Durrani’s criminal case and certain Durrani civil cases. While plaintiff maintains that Judge Barrett “has engaged in an extra judicial effort to destroy me and the Durrani [plaintiffs],” the factual allegations of wrongdoing all involve judicial actions. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Judge Barrett “allowed Dr. Durrani out on his own recognizance on federal criminal charges,” “sat on” a ruling concerning an expert witness testimony to pressure a settlement, forced a settlement with some Durrani plaintiffs, never ordered Medical Protective’s CEO to court or mediation, ruled against the Durrani plaintiffs’ expert witness testimony, forced some Durrani plaintiffs to dismiss a case against a lawyer for Dr. Durrani, refuses the Durrani plaintiffs a trial or a scheduling order and refuses to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, has failed to rule on several motions, and has “ignored” the Durrani plaintiffs’ discovery requests….