Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holkesvig v. VandeWalle

Supreme Court of North Dakota

June 2, 2016

Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Gerald VandeWalle, individually and as Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees

Page 729

          Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.

         Randy Holkesvig, self-represented, Fargo, N.D., plaintiff and appellant; on brief.

         Douglas A. Bahr, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for defendants and appellees; on brief.

         Lisa Fair McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Carol Ronning Kapsner, Gary H. Lee, Dist. Judge, Dale V. Sandstrom, Acting C.J. The Honorable Gary H. Lee, D.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, C.J., disqualified.

          OPINION

Page 730

         Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice.

          [¶1] Randy Holkesvig appeals a district court's judgment dismissing his claims and an order denying his motion for relief. Because the district court appropriately determined Holkesvig violated an order prohibiting him from filing further lawsuits that arise or relate to his 2008 stalking charge and charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order, we affirm.

         I

          [¶2] This case is yet another in an endless stream of repetitive actions stemming from Holkesvig's 2008 stalking charge to which he pled guilty. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Holkesvig pled guilty to stalking in exchange for dismissal of an additional charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. Holkesvig v. Welte, 2011 ND 161, ¶ 3, 801 N.W.2d 712. In addition to bringing numerous other actions, Holkesvig petitioned for post-conviction relief from the consequences of his pleading guilty to stalking, which was denied by the district court and summarily affirmed by this Court. See Holkesvig v. State, 2013 ND 1, ¶ 2, 828 N.W.2d 546.

          [¶3] Holkesvig sued Gerald VandeWalle, individually and as Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota. In his complaint, Holkesvig alleged numerous claims, including, obstruction of justice, defamation, corruption, deceit, fraud, false statements, breach of duty, conspiracy, collusion, racketeering, obstruction, and North Dakota constitutional violations. Holkesvig's ultimate grievance appears to, at least in part, arise from a misstatement of the procedural facts in Holkesvig v. State, where we stated, " Holkesvig's guilty plea was accepted by the district court in 2008 as part of a negotiated plea agreement between his lawyer and the State, which agreement included the State dropping charges that Holkesvig violated a domestic violence protection order." Id. at ¶ 1. (Emphasis added.)

          [¶4] The State moved to dismiss on the ground that Holkesvig had not complied with this Court's order in Holkesvig v. Rost, 2015 ND 67, ¶ 4, 861 N.W.2d 488. Particularly, the State argued Holkesvig's failure to comply with this Court's order in Rost, ordering that Holkesvig may not commence any actions in North Dakota state courts without prior approval of the presiding district court judge of the Northeast Central Judicial District or his designee, required dismissal of the action. The State argued this Court's order in Rost was a jurisdictional prerequisite requiring dismissal under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). In the alternative, the State argued that this Court's order in Rost was a prerequisite to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and requested dismissal under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

          [¶5] Holkesvig responded to the State's motion, arguing that the Rost decision did not bind him, because the case had not yet been mandated at the time he filed this action. Holkesvig raised other arguments not relevant to this decision.

          [¶6] The district court dismissed Holkesvig's lawsuit on the ground it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. Holkesvig moved for relief from the district court's judgment. The district court denied Holkesvig's motion for failure to

Page 731

comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and N.D.R.Civ. P. 60(b). Holkesvig timely appealed the district court's judgment and the order denying his motion for relief from judgment.

         II

          [¶7] The State moved to dismiss on the ground Holkesvig failed to comply with this Court's order in Rost, resulting in either a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) or a failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Holkesvig argues, among numerous other assertions, that the district court erred by dismissing his claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

          [¶8] " Subject-matter jurisdiction is derived from the constitution and the laws . . . ." Winter v.Solheim,2015 ND 210, ¶ 6, 868 N.W.2d 842. " The question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo, when jurisdictional facts are not in dispute." Investors ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.