Riemers v. State
Court of Appeals
and
Johnathan P. Riemers, Plaintiff
v.
State of North Dakota,
Douglas Herman, Gerald W.
VandeWalle, Carol Ronning
Kapsner, Mary Muehlen Maring,
and Dale V. Sandstrom, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Debbie Gordon Kleven
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against State and Justices when their Motion to Dismiss was defective?
II. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint for Failure to state a claim?
Reply Brief Issues
I. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim when the actions of the Administrative actions of the State Supreme Court and District Judge Herman denied Riemers right to state and federal due process?
II. Was Riemers' litigation in bad faith? III. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against State and Justices for money damages as this was barred by judicial immunity?
IV. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint on the unconstitutionality of N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-02(3)(d)?
V. Did the Court err in dismissing the complaint against the State and Justices for declaratory and injunctive relief because they were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel?
VI. Did the Court err in granting a motion while accepting evidence outside the pleadings in a dismissal action?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Judicial immunity makes judges immune from suit for damages for judicial acts not done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Defendants are judicial officers sued for judicial decisions issued in a divorce proceeding. Did the district court correctly find Defendants are immune from suit pursuant to judicial immunity?
II. Did the district court correctly find Plaintiff failed to demonstrate N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-02(3)(d), which codifies judicial immunity, is unconstitutional?
A. Plaintiff argues codification of judicial immunity violates substantive due process. Substantive due process requires a close correspondence between legislation and the goals it advances. The legislative goal of judicial immunity is to help insure the independent and efficient administration of justice by promoting judicial decisions that are principled and not based upon fear of litigation. Did the district court correctly find the codification of judicial immunity is constitutional?
B. Plaintiff argues codification of judicial immunity violates Article I, 9 of the North Dakota Constitution. Article I, 9 provides the public the right to access judicial proceedings. It does not guarantee a judicial remedy for every alleged injury. Furthermore, Article I, 9 grants the Legislative Assembly the authority to determine what types of actions can be brought against the State. Did the district court correctly find it was constitutional for the Legislative Assembly to limit the type of actions that can be brought against the State by legislatively adopting judicial immunity?
III. A party may not collaterally attack a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. Generally, a separate proceeding, including an action to recover damages or for declaratory relief, is a collateral attack if the action challenges the validity or legality of the judgment. In this action, Plaintiff challenges the legality of decisions made by judicial officers in his divorce proceeding. Did the district court correctly find this action is an impermissible collateral attack on judgments issued in the divorce proceeding?
IV. Plaintiff asserts Defendants' motion to dismiss was defective because the motion only referenced N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), not a specific subsection of 12(b). In addition to referencing N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), the motion and supporting brief identified and specified why the Complaint failed to state a claim. Did the district court correctly find the Defendants' motion to dismiss was properly before the district court?
V. If matters outside the pleading are considered by the district court when ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts the district court considered matters outside of the pleading. The district court's opinion does not reference or incorporate any matters outside of the pleading. The district court also specifically wrote that it reached its decision "even if what [Plaintiff] alleges in his complaint is true." Did the district court properly treat the motion as a motion to dismiss?
VI. This Court may award reasonable attorney's fees if it determines an appeal is frivolous. Plaintiff's arguments on appeal are contrary to well-established law, and Plaintiff provided no analysis or authority to support a change in the existing law. Should this Court award Defendants their attorney's fees spent defending this appeal?
Add Docket 20060382 RSS