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.

Meyer v. Haeg

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 9, 2016

Harley Dean Meyer, Plaintiff,
v.
Thomas Haeg, Hennepin County Referee, in his official capacity; Stephen C. Aldrich, Hennepin County District Judge, in his official capacity; Virginia Ekola, Attorney, in her official capacity as an officer of Hennepin County District Court; David Gronbeck, Attorney, in his official capacity as an officer of Hennepin County District Court; Marilyn Kaman, Hennepin County District Judge, in her official capacity; Sara Burmeister, Oak Creek High School Superintendent, in her official capacity; Michael Read, Oak Creek High School Principal, in his official capacity; Dean Maus, Referee, in his official capacity; Jamie L. Anderson, State of Minnesota Judge, in his or her official capacity; Colleen A. Harris-Pearson; Allan Lindsay; Diane Lindsay; J. Does 1 and 2, in their official capacities 4th Judicial District; HealthPartners; Yuma Union High School District; James T. Swenson, Hennepin County 4th Judicial District Judge; Marybeth Dorn, Hennepin County Referee; Judge Lucy A. Wieland, in her official capacity; Judge Denise D. Reilly, in her official capacity; Judge Douglas L. Richards, in his official capacity; Judge Edward Toussaint, in his official capacity; Judge Charles A. Porter, in his official capacity; Judge Kevin G. Ross, in his official capacity; Marnette Hoisve, in her official capacity; Dr. Michael Fuhrman, of HealthPartners; Dr. Sonia Mosch, of HealthPartners; Janey Nelson, of Mound Psychological Services; Jean Peterson, in her official capacity; Dr. John Prybl, of HealthPartners; J. Doe 3, in his or her official capacity 4th Judicial District-Court Administrator?; J. Does 4-8, in their official capacities Hennepin County; J. Doe 9 and 21, in their official capacities State of Minnesota; J. Does 10, 20, and 40, in their official capacities HHS-Regional Office; J. Doe 11, in his or her official capacity State Department; J. Does 12 and 13 U.S. Bank; J. Does 14, 15, and 16, in their official capacities Arizona Department of Economic Security Division of Support Enforcement; J. Doe 17, in his or her official capacity Yuma Union School District; J. Doe 18, in his or her official capacity IRS; J. Doe 19 Wells Fargo Bank; J. Doe 22-28 State of Minnesota - Minnesota Supreme Court; J. Doe 31, in his or her official capacity State auditor; J. Doe 32, in his or her official capacity Minn. DHS auditor; J. Doe 33, in his or her official capacity HHS auditors from regional office; J. Doe 34, in his or her official capacity State of Minnesota -executive policy maker; J. Doe 35 NonGovernment Agency; J. Doe 36 Unknown Company; J. Doe 38, in his or her official capacity State of Minnesota; J. Doe 39, in his or her official capacity NonGovernment Agency; J. Doe 47, in his or her official capacity State of Minnesota?/Hennepin County?; J. Does 53-82; and J. Does 83-91, in their official capacities, Defendants.

          Harley Dean Meyer, pro se, Naewna Newspaper, Ladapa Tiwasingha, 96 Moo 3 Vibavadee Randsit Road, Laksi, Bangkok, Thailand 10210, Plaintiff

          Steven M. Phillips and Steven C. Kerbaugh, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A., and Ann-Marie Anderson, Wright Welker & Pauole, PLC, for Yuma Union High School District

          Bryon G. Ascheman, Burke & Thomas, PLLP, for Colleen A. Harris-Pearson

          Stacy A. Broman, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, and Ronald S. Stadler, Mallery & Zimmerman, Milwaukee WI, 53202; for Sara Burmeister and Michael Read

          Jonathan P. Norrie and Amie E. Penny Sayler, Bassford Remele, for U.S. Bank, N.A.

          Ellen B. Silverman and Ashley M. DeMinck, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

          David M. Wilk and Angela Beranek Brandt, Larson King, LLP, for HealthPartners, Inc.

          Erin M. Secord, Assistant United States Attorney, for J. Does 10, 11, 18, 20, 33, and 40

          Andrew Tweeten, Assistant Attorney General, for Referee Thomas Haeg, Judge Stephen C. Aldrich, Judge Marilyn Kaman, Referee Dean Maus, Judge Jamie L. Anderson, Referee Marybeth Dorn, Judge James T. Swenson, Judge Lucy A. Wieland, Judge Denise D. Reilly, Judge Kevin G. Ross, Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr., Judge Douglas L. Richards, Judge Charles A. Porter, Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Court, and Minnesota Supreme Court

          David Gronbeck, Esq., pro se, 5821 Blaisdell Ave. South, Defendant

          AMENDED ORDER [1]

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

          This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (“Pl.'s R & R Objs.”) [Doc No. 309] and Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (“Pl.'s Order Objs.”) [Doc. No. 318] (collectively, “Meyer's Objections”). Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer (“Meyer”) objects to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bowbeer dated June 27, 2016 (“R & R”) [Doc. No. 292] and Magistrate Judge Bowbeer's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint dated July 8, 2016 (“July 8 Order”) [Doc. No. 295]. Numerous Defendants filed timely responses to Meyer's Objections. (See Doc Nos. 311, 319, 321-25, 327, 340.) For the reasons set forth below, Meyer's Objections are overruled, the R & R is adopted, and the July 8 Order is affirmed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         More than a year ago, Meyer filed his original Complaint, which was 221 pages long, named twelve Defendants and ninety-one J. Doe Defendants, and-by its own count-contained sixty-six state and federal law claims. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) As Meyer described it, “[t]his action of complex litigation arises out of a series of transactions and occurrences involving procedural irregularities originating from a 2003 evidentiary hearing held in the Hennepin County 4th District's Family Court.” (Id. at 4.[2])

         After numerous Defendants moved to dismiss his claims, Meyer requested and received an extension of time in which to file an amended complaint. (See Order dated November 9, 2015 (“August 9 Order”) at 3 [Doc. No. 123].) However, Magistrate Judge Thorson (“Judge Thorson”) specifically directed that Meyer's amended complaint comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Id. at 4.) Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement” of a plaintiff's claims and the basis for the court's jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(2).

         Despite Judge Thorson's directive and the requirements of Rule 8, Meyer filed an amended complaint that is 267 pages long, names twenty-seven Defendants and seventy-seven J. Doe Defendants, and-by its own count-contains eighty-two state and federal law claims. (See First Amended Compl. (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 136].) Again, numerous Defendants moved to dismiss Meyer's claims (collectively, the “moving Defendants”). Meyer then sought leave to file another amended complaint, but did so without complying with the local rules governing such a motion. (See Pl.'s Mot. for Second Amended Compl. [Doc. No. 267]; Order dated March 8, 2016 (“March 8 Order”) [Doc. No. 275].) Despite this failure, Magistrate Judge Bowbeer[3] (“Judge Bowbeer”) agreed to consider Meyer's motion to amend. (See March 8 Order.) The proposed complaint accompanying Meyer's motion is 321 pages long, looks to add still more defendants, and-by its own count-contains ninety-one state and federal law claims. (See Proposed Second Amended Compl. (“SAC”) [Doc. No. 271].)

         The R & R recommended granting the moving Defendants' motions to dismiss. (See R & R at 56-58.) Judge Bowbeer concluded that Meyer's claims against the moving Defendants suffered from one or more of the following deficiencies: (1) they were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) personal or subject matter jurisdiction was lacking; (3) Meyer failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted; (4) the claim was barred by some form of immunity (e.g., the Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, statutory immunity); (5) Meyer failed to properly serve the Defendant(s). (See id. at 9-56.)

         Judge Bowbeer then denied Meyer's motion to file the SAC. (See July 8 Order at 20.) Specifically, Judge Bowbeer found that an amendment was unwarranted because: (1) Meyer's proposed amendments did not remedy the deficiencies in the FAC; (2) the proposed amendments were futile; and (3) further amendment would cause undue delay, unduly burden the Court and the Defendants, and “overarching principles of justice” weighed against granting Meyer's motion. (See id. at 5-20.)

         Meyer filed lengthy, but difficult to decipher, objections to both the R & R and the July 8 Order. (See Pl.'s R & R Objs.; Pl.'s Order Objs.) Meyer's Objections are closely related and present nearly identical arguments. As best the Court can discern, Meyer advances four primary objections regarding the R & R and July 8 Order: (1) that they failed to reach the merits of his claims about the legality of a 2003 state court child custody decision; (2) that they improperly concluded that many of Meyer's claims are time barred; (3) that they relied on “significant referencing errors” in the FAC; and (4) that Meyer was not given enough time to file the FAC and his motion to file the SAC was improperly denied. (See Pl.'s R & R Objs.; Pl.'s Order Objs.)

         This Court has carefully considered all of Meyer's Objections and conducted a de novo review of the record. Based on this review, the Court finds that the thorough and well-reasoned R & R and July 8 Order accurately recount the facts and correctly apply the law.[4]

         A. Facts and Meyer's Claims

         Nearly all of Meyer's claims relate to a child custody dispute that occurred in 2003. (R & R at 5.) In 2001, Meyer divorced his wife, V.M. (Id.) They were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their son, J.M. (Id.) However, shortly thereafter Meyer and V.M. began to dispute the custody terms, leading to litigation in Hennepin County Family Court. (See id. at 5-6.) Numerous hearings related to the custody of J.M. were held between 2002 and 2003. (See id. at 5-9.) Meyer was represented by an attorney during these proceedings and he and/or his attorney was present at each hearing. (See id.) Ultimately, V.M. was awarded sole legal and physical custody of J.M. and Meyer was ordered to pay child support (the “2003 custody decision”). (Id. at 9.) Meyer claims he briefly retained another attorney to pursue an appeal of the 2003 custody decision, but ...


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.