United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Dean Meyer, pro se, Naewna Newspaper, Ladapa
Tiwasingha, 96 Moo 3 Vibavadee Randsit Road, Laksi, Bangkok,
Thailand 10210, Plaintiff
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
G. Ascheman, Burke & Thomas, PLLP, for Colleen A.
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.
B. Silverman and Ashley M. DeMinck, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
M. Wilk and Angela Beranek Brandt, Larson King, LLP, for
M. Secord, Assistant United States Attorney, for J. Does 10,
11, 18, 20, 33, and 40
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
Gronbeck, Esq., pro se, 5821 Blaisdell Ave. South,
AMENDED ORDER 
RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
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.
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
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).
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 (“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].)
& 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.
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
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
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.
Facts and Meyer's Claims
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,