DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MINNESOTA Timothy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MINNESOTA Timothy CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 107 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Timothy Charles Holmseth, Court File No. 14-cv-2970 (DWF/LIB) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION City of East Grand Forks, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Defendants City of East Grand Forks (“Defendant City”), James Richter, Michael Hedlund, David Murphy, Rodney Hajicek, and Aeisso Schrage’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 13]; Defendants Barb Erdman and Michael Norland’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 23]; Defendant Ronald Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32], and Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 54]; Defendant Michael LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 61]; Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72]; and Defendant Jeanette Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84]. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1. The Court held motions hearings on December 17, 2014 and February 11, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendants City, Richter, Hedlund, Murphy, Hajicek, and Schrage’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 13], be GRANTED; Defendants Erdman and Norland’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 23], be GRANTED; Defendant Galstad’s Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 54], be GRANTED; Defendant Galstad’s Motion to Dismiss, CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 107 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 57 [Docket No. 32] be DENIED as moot; Defendant LaCoursiere’s Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 61], be GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72] be DENIED; and Defendant Ringuette’s Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84], be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case arises from three separate courses of events. The first course of events concerns the actions of members of the East Grand Forks Police Department (“EGFPD”) while investigating complaints made about Plaintiff Timothy Holmseth (“Plaintiff”) between 2009 and 2011 regarding postings he was publishing to the internet that ultimately resulted in a protective order being issued against Plaintiff in Florida. The second course of events concerns the actions of members of the EGFPD, members of the Polk County Sheriff’s Department, and two attorneys during the 2011 and 2012 investigation and prosecution of Plaintiff for violations of the Florida protective order. The third course of events concerns a staff member of the East Grand Forks Economic Development and Housing Authority (“EDHA”) being ordered to shred an address verification form required for Plaintiff to obtain security clearance to work for a company providing janitorial services to the National Weather Service (“NWS”), and complaints made about Plaintiff while so employed that ultimately resulted in his employment being terminated on July 11, 2014. On July 22, 2014, Plaintiff submitted his initial pro se Complaint, [Docket No. 1], alleging that the named Defendants had conspired with non-party individuals and each other to violate a number of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an 1 Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11], that is the operative complaint. 1It appears that when Plaintiff formatted his Amended Complaint, he inserted into the body of the Amended Complaint portions of the text of two letters that he may have intended to include as exhibits. (See Amended 2 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 107 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 57 On September 12, 2014, Defendants City, Richter, Hedlund, Murphy, Hajicek, and Schrage (collectively, the “City Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 13]. On September 18, 2014, Defendants Erdman and Norland (collectively, the “County Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 23]. On September 24, 2014, Defendant Galstad filed a Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 32]. On October 14, 2014, Defendant Galstad filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 54]. On October 21, 2014, Defendant LaCoursiere filed a Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 61]. As initially scheduled, oral arguments in the above-listed motions were to be heard on two separate dates. On October 30, 2014, the Court issued an Order consolidating the motions hearings regarding the four above-listed motions and rescheduling the single hearing for December 17, 2014. (Order, [Docket No. 71]). On November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief, [Docket No. 72]. On November 17, 2014, the Court issued an order scheduling that motion to be heard at the motions hearing previously scheduled for December 17, 2014. (Order, [Docket No. 74]). On December 3, 2014, Defendant Ringuette filed her Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 84]. Complaint, [Docket No. 11], pp. 26-27). The inserted portion of the text of the first letter was to the Clerk of Court, asking that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be accepted. (Id. at 27). It appears Clerk of Court concluded the text of that letter to be the end of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and, as a result, docketed the Amended Complaint in two separate entries. The first portion of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was docketed under the heading “Amended Complaint” and appears to end on page 26. (Id.). The second portion of the Amended Complaint, which contains additional allegations, his list of claims, and prayer for relief, appears beginning at page three and ending at page twelve of Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint. (See Id., Ex. A, pp. 3-12). This error in the form of the filing is immaterial to the Court’s consideration of the motions at issue. When considering motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court may consider the pleadings themselves, materials embraced by pleadings, exhibits attached to the pleadings, and matters of public record. Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 652 F.3d 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, . to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 3 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 107 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 57 On February 11, 2015, while the motions heard at the December 17, 2014, hearing were still under advisement, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant Ringuette’s motion. The Court stated orally on the record that it would address all of the above-listed motions in a single report and recommendation. II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In addressing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, “we look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Riley v. St. Louis County of Mo., 153 F.3d 627, 629 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc., 136 F.3d 554, 556 (8th Cir. 1998)). “[T]he court must assume that all facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint are true, and must liberally construe those allegations.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See Maki v. Allete, Inc., 383 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 2004). As discussed above, “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” but in contrast, “[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 4 CASE 0:14-cv-02970-DWF-LIB Document 107 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 57 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-67). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 664. “Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). III. FACTS COMMON TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS2 The overwhelming majority of the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint concern a Florida attorney named Kim Picazio and Picazio’s associates, whom Plaintiff conclusorily alleges conspired together and with Defendants to threaten him and violate his civil rights. (See gen., Amended Complaint, [Docket No. 11]). Neither Picazio nor her associates are parties to this case.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT TASK FORCE FOR GENDER FAIRNESS IN THE COURTS FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 1989 In Memoriam SUSANNE C. SEDGWICK On April 8, 1988, during the course of the Task Force's work, we were deeply saddened by the death of our friend and / / Task Force Vice Chair Susanne C. Sedgwick. Judge Sedgwick was a During her life Judge . "Some leaders have a pioneer in the law Sedgwick demonstrated way of casting a shadow throughout her career, a vital and continuing and those who follow having been Minnesota's devotion to the welfare walk in that shadow. But first woman assistant of the community with Sue, we always county attorney, first through her work with walked in her sunshine." woman lawyer elected to the United Way, as a a judicial position, the founding member of the first woman appointed to Minnesota Women's The work of the Gender the district court, one of Political Caucus, a Fairness Task Force was the first women ap­ founding member of the the last work she laid pointed to the Minnesota National Association of down. This report is Court of Appeals. Women Judges, and par­ dedicated to her ticipation in organiza­ memory. tions throughout the community. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ............ ii List ofTask Force Members .v Acknowledgements . ·. Vll Preface . .IX Introduction: The Spirit of Change 1 1. Family Law . 5 Spousal Maintenance 6 Property Division · .
    [Show full text]
  • The Law, Courts and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: an Informal Legal History of the Years 1835 to 1865 Robert J
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 1 1976 The Law, Courts and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: An Informal Legal History of the Years 1835 to 1865 Robert J. Sheran Timothy J. Baland Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Sheran, Robert J. and Baland, Timothy J. (1976) "The Law, Courts and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: An Informal Legal History of the Years 1835 to 1865," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Sheran and Baland: The Law, Courts and Lawyers in the Frontier Days of Minnesota: An THE LAW, COURTS, AND LAWYERS IN THE FRONTIER DAYS OF MINNESOTA: AN INFORMAL LEGAL HISTORY OF THE YEARS 1835 TO 1865* By ROBERT J. SHERANt Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court and Timothy J. Balandtt In this article Chief Justice Sheran and Mr. Baland trace the early history of the legal system in Minnesota. The formative years of the Minnesota court system and the individuals and events which shaped them are discussed with an eye towards the lasting contributionswhich they made to the system of today in this, our Bicentennialyear.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Minnesota District Court County of Ramsey
    STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Jennifer Schroeder, Elizer Eugene Darris, Case Type: Civil Christopher James Jecevicus-Varner, and Court File No. ____ Tierre Davon Caldwell, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY v. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, in his official capacity, Defendant. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are citizens of Minnesota who have been denied the right to vote. They bring this civil action under the Minnesota Constitution to remedy the Defendant’s unconstitutional deprivations of their fundamental constitutional right to participate in the democratic process. 2. Each Plaintiff has been convicted of at least one of the hundreds of crimes classified as a felony in Minnesota, has completed any required period of incarceration, and is currently on parole, probation, or some other form of supervised release. As such, Plaintiffs have been deemed safe to live in their communities where they raise their children, contribute to Minnesota’s economic, cultural, religious, civic and political life, pay taxes, and bear the consequences of the decisions made by their governments. 3. Notwithstanding their status as contributing members of society whose full integration is central to their continued success in the community, Minnesota denies Plaintiffs an essential indicium of citizenship, the right to vote. 4. Under Article VII of the Minnesota Constitution, a Minnesota citizen who is convicted of a felony is automatically disenfranchised until their civil rights have been restored. However, Minnesota Statute Section 609.165, subdivisions 1-2 restores the right to vote only upon discharge, which is achieved by court order or upon expiration of sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study: Reengineering Minnesota’S Courts
    A CASE STUDY: REENGINEERING MINNESOTA’S COURTS December, 2012 Laura Klaversma, Court Services Director Lee Suskin, Of Counsel Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services 707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, Colorado 80202-3429 303-293-3063 Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge and thank State Court Administrators Sue Dosal and Jeff Shorba for providing the information on the Minnesota Judiciary that made this case study possible. The authors also wish to thank the staff of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) and individuals from several districts for taking the time from their busy schedules to prepare material and to present to the authors information on, for each of the many projects, what they are trying to accomplish, how they are attempting to accomplish it, and how they are measuring success. In particular, the authors wish to thank Directors Kay Pedretti, Jill Goski, and Dawn Torgerson, and other key SCAO staff Nancy Nystuen, Kim Larson, Polly Ryan, Kathie LaCosse, Judy Nord, Ann Ahlstrom, Deb Dailey, Michael Johnson, and Melanie Sinouthasy; and Tenth District Administrator Michael Moriarity, Conservator Account Auditing Program Manager Cate Boyko and the Self-Help Center Manager Susan Ledray. In particular, the authors acknowledge and thank Intergovernmental Relations Liaison Janet Marshall for organizing the SCAO presentations, for compiling reports and material and for making our visit smooth and productive. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Power, Convenience, and the Elimination of Personal Jurisdiction
    Florida A&M University College of Law Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law Journal Publications Faculty Works 1982 Power, Convenience, and the Elimination of Personal Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts Robert Haskell Abrams Florida A&M University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Robert Haskell Abrams, Power, Convenience, and the Elimination of Personal Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts, 58 Ind. L.J. 1 (1982) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Indiana Law Journal Vol. 58, No.1 1982 Power, Convenience, and the Elimination of Personal Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts] ROBERT HASKELL ABRAMS* Is it not time that we stop thinking that, because for administrative purposes it is convenient to divide the United States into judicial districts, a federal court "sits within and for that district; and is bounded by its local limits," as the Supreme Court once put it? It also sits within and for the United States ...."** Had Congress in the exercise of its article III powers to establish "in­ ferior courts'? chosen to establish only one such tribunal, there would be little doubt of the constitutional permissibility of such a choice," That court would have been able to hear and decide all cases which Congress instructed it to adjudicate, subject only to limitation by the scope of the judicial power," Assuming efforts were made to inform defendants of the t Copyright 1983 by Robert Haskell Abrams.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Appendix a General Rules Of
    GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS November 30, 2016 Rule 10. Tribal Court Orders and Judgments Rule 10.01. Recognition Governed by Law.When Tribal Court Orders and Judgments Must Be Given Effect (a) Recognition Mandated by Law. The courts of this state shall follow applicable state and federal statutes, regulations, and rules that either mandate or provide rules and procedures for recognition and enforcement ofWhere mandated by state or federal statute, orders, judgments, and other judicial acts of the tribal courts of any federally recognized Indian tribe shall be recognized and enforced. Applicable statutes include but are not limited to: (a) Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2265; (b) Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1911; (c) National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3106; (d) American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3713; (e) Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B; (f) Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act, Minn. Stat. § 260.771; (g) Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 518C.101-.905; (h) Uniform Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, Minn. Stat. § 518D.104; (i) Minnesota Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgements Recognition Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 548.54-.63. (b) Procedure. (1) Generally. Where an applicable state or federal statute establishes a procedure for enforcement of any tribal court order or judgment, that procedure must be followed. (2) Violence Against Women Act; Presumption. An order that is subject
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices Review Contracting and Procurement in the Public Sector
    Best Practices Review Contracting and Procurement in the Public Sector November 15, 2005 Government Information Division Office of the State Auditor State of Minnesota Deputy State Auditor Tony Sutton Government Information Staff David Kazeck, Supervisor John Jernberg, Research Analyst Jill Roberts, Research Analyst Andrea Johnson Wendy Murphy Trudy Specht Debbie Schultz Neal Meyer (Intern) Missy Graner (Intern) Rachael Paul (Intern) Legal Staff Mark Kerr Preface Last year we issued our first ever Best Practices Review entitled, Cooperative Efforts in Public Service Delivery. The review focused on ways to foster, craft and implement cooperative agreements in the public sector. The second review, Contracting and Procurement in the Public Sector, builds upon what was learned in the first review by providing detailed steps that can help increase accountability, reduce liability, and encourage savings when contracting and procuring in the public sector. We hope that this review will be a tool for local officials as they navigate through the contracting and procurement process. Overall, a best practices review’s purpose is greater than just drawing attention to noteworthy programs; it should also provide useful information that all local governments can use to adapt successful programs to their community. I would like to thank all of the participants who took part in the interviews and field visits as well as all of the local officials who took the time to fill-out our survey for this review. I would also like to thank the Topic Selection Advisory Committee for recommending this topic. We hope that this review, as well as future best practices reviews, will help local government officials identify new and innovative ways to deliver government services more efficiently and effectively.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Minnesota
    CASE 0:05-cv-02993-JRT-RLE Document 158 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lance Gerald Milliman, Plaintiff, vs. County of Stearns, Lowell Rushmeyer, Connie Bauman, Dennis Heinen, City of Kimball, Cindy Stelten, Shelly Olson, Andrew Maus, Dan Konz, John Clement, Ron Daniels, Wayne Mackereth, Michael Olk, Todd Rohloff, Dianne Robinson, Tamarack Court, Inc., Dale Wagner, Gary Plamann, Darhla Plamann, Shadduck, Young & Brown; Sheldon Brown; Iverson Reuvers, Jason Hiveley, Neils, Franz & Chirhart, Neil Franz, Meagher & Geer, Steven Eggimann, Debra Weiss, Erica Gutmann Strohl, Edward Toussaint, Christopher Dietzen, Paul Hoffman, and Bernard Boland, Defendants. Civ. No. 05-2993 (JRT/RLE) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CASE 0:05-cv-02993-JRT-RLE Document 158 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 34 I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), upon the Motion of Neil Franz (“Franz”), and the law firm of Neils Franz & Chirhart (collectively, the “Franz Defendants”), to Dismiss; the Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief; the Motion of Tamarack Court, Inc. (“Tamarack Court”), and Dale Wagner (“Wagner”)(collectively, “the Tamarack Defendants”), to Dismiss; and the Motion of Gary and Darhla Plamann (collectively, “the Plamanns”) to Dismiss. A Hearing on the Motions of the Plaintiff and the Franz Defendants was conducted on July 13, 2006, at which time, the Plaintiff appeared pro se; the Franz Defendants appeared by Keith J. Broady, Esq.; and the Tamarack Defendants appeared by Patrick M.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Minnesota Don
    CASE 0:11-cv-00473-JRT-JSM Document 148 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DON MASHAK, CIVIL NO. 11-473 (JRT/JSM) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA, MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, MARY YUNKER, TIMOTHY R. BLOOMQUIST, DIANA LONGRIE, LEE WOLFGRAM, DANNETTE MEEKS-HULL, MICHAEL HULL, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, Defendants. The above matter came on before the undersigned upon the Motion to Dismiss of State Defendants [Docket No. 15], Don Mashak’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus [Docket No. 23], Don Mashak’s Motion for Default and Summary Judgment [Docket No. 56], Defendant Lee Wolfgram’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 75], and Don Mashak’s Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 115]. Plaintiff Don Mashak appeared pro se.1 John S. Garry appeared on behalf of the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker and Timothy R. Bloomquist. Amber Thompson Fasching appeared on behalf of defendant Lee 1 This suit was commenced by plaintiffs Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. First National Repossessors, Inc. was dismissed for failure to obtain legal representation. See Order dated June 16, 2011 [Docket No. 69], adopting Report and Recommendation dated May 4, 2011 [Docket No. 44]. CASE 0:11-cv-00473-JRT-JSM Document 148 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 70 Wolfgram. No appearances were made on behalf of defendants Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull or Michael Hull. The Motion to Dismiss of State Defendants [Docket No. 15], Don Mashak’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus [Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, April 19, 2021​
    STATE OF MINNESOTA​ Journal of the Senate​ NINETY-SECOND LEGISLATURE​ FORTY-SECOND DAY​ St. Paul, Minnesota, Monday, April 19, 2021​ The Senate met at 11:00 a.m. and was called to order by the President.​ The members of the Senate paused for a moment of silent prayer and reflection.​ The members of the Senate gave the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of​ America.​ The roll was called, and the following Senators were present:​ Abeler​ Draheim​ Howe​ Marty​ Rest​ Anderson​ Duckworth​ Ingebrigtsen​ Mathews​ Rosen​ Bakk​ Dziedzic​ Isaacson​ McEwen​ Ruud​ Benson​ Eaton​ Jasinski​ Miller​ Senjem​ Bigham​ Eichorn​ Johnson​ Murphy​ Tomassoni​ Carlson​ Eken​ Johnson Stewart​ Nelson​ Torres Ray​ Chamberlain​ Fateh​ Kent​ Newman​ Utke​ Champion​ Franzen​ Kiffmeyer​ Newton​ Weber​ Clausen​ Frentz​ Klein​ Osmek​ Westrom​ Coleman​ Gazelka​ Koran​ Pappas​ Wiger​ Cwodzinski​ Goggin​ Kunesh​ Port​ Wiklund​ Dahms​ Hawj​ Lang​ Pratt​ Dibble​ Hoffman​ Latz​ Putnam​ Dornink​ Housley​ Limmer​ Rarick​ Pursuant to Rule 14.1, the President announced the following members intend to vote under​ Rule 40.7: Anderson, Carlson, Champion, Clausen, Coleman, Duckworth, Eaton, Eichorn, Eken,​ Isaacson, Kunesh, Latz, Newman, Newton, Osmek, Senjem, and Wiklund.​ The President declared a quorum present.​ The reading of the Journal was dispensed with and the Journal, as printed and corrected, was​ approved.​ MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE​ Mr. President:​ I have the honor to announce the passage by the House of the following House Files, herewith​ transmitted: H.F. Nos. 1684 and 1952.​ Patrick D. Murphy, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives​ Transmitted April 17, 2021​ 2922​ JOURNAL OF THE SENATE​ [42ND DAY​ FIRST READING OF HOUSE BILLS​ The following bills were read the first time.​ H.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Statutes 1988
    MINNESOTA STATUTES 1988 MINNESOTA STATUTES 1988 Embracing laws of a general and permanent nature and certain other laws in force or to be in force after the 1988 regular session. Compiled, edited, and published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota "Ai^y OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Copyright © 1988 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 1988 Copyright© 1988 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes State of Minnesota All rights reserved. No part of this set may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the revisor of statutes. Copyright is not claimed in the words of the law. Copyright is claimed in the compiled form of the words, the numbering, headnotes, footnotes, historical notes, tables, and the index. Minnesota Statutes may be purchased from: Documents Division Department of Administration 117 University Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 The price indicated in the Notice To Users includes the entire set of Minnesota Statutes 1988 and its supplement to be published in 1989. Copies of individual volumes, including the court rules and index volumes, may be purchased separately while supplies are available. Copyright © 1988 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. MINNESOTA STATUTES 1988 Ill Published by Steven C. Cross, Revisor of Statutes Edited by Marcia A. Waldron, Deputy Revisor Lorna M. Breiter Robert P. Kittel Assistant Deputy Revisor, Indexing Assistant Deputy Revisor, Text Diane E.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Access Plan for the Minnesota Judicial Branch July 2016
    Language Access Plan for the Minnesota Judicial Branch July 2016 Minnesota Judicial Branch’s Vision The general public and those who use the court system will refer to it as accessible, fair, consistent, responsive, free of discrimination, independent, and well managed. Mission To provide justice through a system that assures equal access for the fair and timely resolution of cases and controversies. 1 1 Priorities and Strategies for the Minnesota Judicial Branch Page 1 of 43 Page 2 of 43 Table of Contents Introduction and Plan Overview ..................................................................................................... 5 I. Background: Snapshot of State Population and Judicial Branch Structure ................................. 6 A. Minnesota’s Diverse Landscape ......................................................................................... 6 B. Minnesota Judicial Branch .................................................................................................. 7 II. Legal Framework for Language Access ..................................................................................... 10 A. Minnesota State Law ........................................................................................................ 10 B. Federal Laws and Regulations .......................................................................................... 10 C. Minnesota Judicial Branch Strategic Plan ......................................................................... 12 D. Court Interpreter Program ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]