from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.
Holkesvig, self-represented, Fargo, N.D., plaintiff and
appellant; on brief.
A. Bahr, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Bismarck, N.D., for defendants and appellees; on
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,
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.
[¶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
[¶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
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.
[¶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."