Riemers v. Anderson

20030317 Roland C. Riemers, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Deputy Paul Anderson, Sheriff
Michael Crocker, State's Attorney
Stuart A. Larson, Traill County,
Trooper David Pulju, Defendants and Appellees
---------
Patrolman Paul Borud, and City
of Mayville, Defendants

Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Traill County
Judge Wade L. Webb
Nature of Action: Personal Injury
Counsel:
Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Pearson Christensen & Clapp, PLLP
Appellee: Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office
Term: 03/2004   Argument: 03/09/2004  10:45am
ND cite: 2004 ND 109
NW cite: 680 N.W.2d 280

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
A. Traill County 49-03-C-00034 (sexual bias in arrest, civil rights, etc.)
Did the Court err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment:
1. By ruling that the defendants had immunity for their actions?
2. By ruling on the issues of malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and two year statute of limitations instead of civil right denials?
3. By granting summary judgment without first allowing Riemers any discovery or to amend his complaint?
4. By denying Riemers his state constitutional right to a remedy for the injuries he suffered from the Defendants' biased and unlawful behavior?
5. By consolidating the two cases after first allowing Traill County to file consolidated motions and pleadings?
6. By dismissing Trooper Pulju from the law suit?
7. By awarding costs and disbursements to the Defendants?
8. By ruling on the admissibility of evidence contrary to Rule 56?
B. Traill County 49-03-C-00035 (rights of non-convicted under ICCPR)
1. Did the Court err by denying Riemers summary judgment, but granting summary judgment to the Defendants?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The Case was Properly Dismissed for Insufficient Service of Process
A. Service was not effectuated against the State
B. Service was not effectuated on Trooper Pulju individually
The District Court Lacked Jurisdiction
A. The filing of a notice of claim is jurisdictional under North Dakota law
B. The claim was properly dismissed because a notice of claim was not filed

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The overriding issue is whether the Trial Court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the Traill County Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Riemers's complaints with prejudice. Based upon the arguments made in Riemers's appellant brief the specific issues in this appeal are:
I. Is Riemers barred from relitigating the claims and issues involved in this case?
II. Are the Traill County Defendants entitled to immunity from the claims made by Riemers?
III. Was the Trial Court correct in ruling that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights conferred no rights on Riemers to bring his claims?
Add Docket 20030317 RSS Add Docket 20030317 RSS

Docket entries:
111/04/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 11/03/2003
211/04/2003 NOTE: THIS CASE IS CONSOLIDATED w/20030318. MAKE ALL DOCKET ENTRIES, EXCEPT DIS/MAN, IN THIS CASE
311/04/2003 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 11/03/2003
411/21/2003 TRANSCRIPT DATED July 31, 2003
511/21/2003 DISK - TRA (e-filed)
612/05/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols) Not rec'd: #29--Shorthand Notes.
712/29/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
812/29/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
912/30/2003 DISK - ATB
1001/23/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF (State of ND--Trooper David Pulju) in 20030317
1101/23/2004 DISK e-mailed (AEB - State)
1201/27/2004 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM RULE 32(a)(7)(A), N.D.R.App.P. (Word Limitation - AEB)
1301/27/2004 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (11,500 word limit for AEB - Pearson Christensen firm). Granted
1401/27/2004 E-FILED MOTION (re word limitation)
1501/30/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF (Crocker,Anderson,Larson & Traill Co.) (e-Filed)
1601/30/2004 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB -- Crocker, Anderson, Larson & Traill Co.)
1702/02/2004 Payment of $25 surcharge (Receipt #15331)
1802/05/2004 Received 7 copies of the AEB of Traill County from Central Duplicating
1903/09/2004 APPEARANCES: Roland C. Riemers; Ronald F. Fischer and Douglas A. Bahr
2003/09/2004 ARGUED: Riemers; Fischer and Bahr (Volume Y, Page 212)
2103/09/2004 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2203/10/2004 MOTION FOR REMAND (sua sponte)
2303/10/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (REMAND). Granted
2403/10/2004 ORDER OF REMAND
2503/10/2004 Order Mailed to Parties, clerk & judge
2604/12/2004 Ltr from Ronald Fischer re: Def. will not challenge Dist. Ct. Mem. Opinion & Order of 4-8-04
2704/15/2004 RE-FILED RECORD ON APPEAL (3 VOLUMES) not sent w/record was #29 (Shorthand Notes)
2804/15/2004 (ROA also re-filed in consolidated case 20030318)
2906/03/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3006/03/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen
3106/03/2004 Costs on appeal awarded in favor of the Appellees
3206/07/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
3306/30/2004 MANDATE
3407/02/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3503/16/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/21/2014