from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central
Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
Everett, self-represented, petitioner and appellant; on
M. Vaagen, Assistant State's Attorney, for respondent and
appellee; on brief.
1] Tilmer Everett appeals from an order denying him leave of
court for further filings entered after he moved for
permission to file what he claims is newly discovered
evidence and an application for post-conviction relief.
Everett is subject to an injunctive order barring him from
future filings without the district court's approval. We
conclude the order denying him leave of court is not an
appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.
2] In 2007 Everett was convicted of gross sexual imposition
after a jury found him guilty, and this Court summarily
affirmed his criminal judgment on appeal. State v.
Everett, 2008 ND 126, 756 N.W.2d 344. Everett has since
filed numerous post-conviction relief applications, which
have been denied and upheld on appeal. See
Everett v. State, 2016 ND 78, 877 N.W.2d 796;
Everett v. State, 2015 ND 162, 870 N.W.2d 26;
Everett v. State, 2012 ND 189, 821 N.W.2d 385;
Everett v. State, 2011 ND 221, 806 N.W.2d 438;
Everett v. State, 2010 ND 226, 795 N.W.2d 37;
Everett v. State, 2010 ND 4, 789 N.W.2d 282;
Everett v. State, 2008 ND 199, 757 N.W.2d 530;
see also State v. Everett, 2014 ND 191, 858 N.W.2d
3] On August 6, 2015, the district court entered an order
finding Everett's filings repetitive, excessive, and
cumbersome and barring Everett from future filings without
leave of the court:
[H]e may not file any further motions or pleading in or
related to his criminal action 08-06-K-1026 at the district
court level, except after seeking and receiving approval of
the presiding judge of the South Central Judicial District or
her/his designee to file a proper application under [N.D.C.C.
§] 29-32.1-04 where Everett succinctly and concisely
establishes an exception to the statute of limitation under
[N.D.C.C. §] 29-32.1-01(3) and is not subject to summary
disposition under [N.D.C.C. §] 29-32.1-09. The State is
relieved from responding to any further motions or pleadings
filed in District Court in these cases, unless the District
Court reviews the motion or pleading, determines it has merit
and, in writing, permits Everett's filing and requests a
Everett, 2016 ND 78, ¶¶ 1, 22-24, 877
N.W.2d 796, we affirmed the district court's order,
concluding the order did not violate Everett's due
process rights. 
4] On February 17, 2016, Everett moved the district court for
permission to file newly discovered evidence and another
post-conviction relief application claiming newly discovered
evidence under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3). In a March 2016
order, the court denied leave to allow the filings and
dismissed the matter. The court explained:
Everett again alleges he was not provided information
regarding a companion case, which led to the investigation
leading to his conviction. The information was referenced in
the trial of the matter. Everett has on multiple occasions
alleged this information is new evidence. Everett on every
occasion has failed to show the alleged new evidence would
have any bearing on the case and each time his motions have
been meritless. The Court is not going to address this same
information once again.
The Court has reviewed the new application and finds all of
the alleged new allegations are meritless and Everett has
previously brought these same matters before the Court ...