Larson v. Hagerty
v.
Gail Hagerty,
Zachary Pelham,
Wayne Stenehjem, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Ronald E. Goodman
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office |
Is N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04 a subject matter jurisdictional predicate statute?
Is this an impermissible collateral attack?
At the common law, do judges have immunity only if they acted in good faith, only if they acted with judicial integrity?
Do Stenehjem and Pelham have discretionary immunity for filing a motion and making argument?
Can Larson sue the Defendants, is he required to sue the State?
Does having the Office of Attorney General represent State employees conflict with his function to represent the best interests of the People?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Under state law, a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of a lawsuit against the State and its employees if the plaintiff did not timely present a notice of claim. Plaintiff sues a state judge and two state employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment. Plaintiff never presented a notice of claim. Did the district court correctly find it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case?
II. A party may not collaterally attack a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. A proceeding is a collateral attack if the action challenges the legality of the judgment in another proceeding. Plaintiff challenges the legality of the judgment in another proceeding. Did the district court correctly find this action is an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment in the other proceeding?
III. Judicial immunity makes judges immune from suit for damages for judicial acts not done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Defendant Hagerty is a judicial officer sued for an order she issued in a civil proceeding. Did the district court correctly find Defendant Hagerty immune from suit?
IV. Discretionary immunity makes government officials immune from suit for discretionary acts. An action is discretionary if it is a matter of choice and the decision whether to act is based on public policy considerations. Defendants Stenehjem and Pelham are sued for their discretionary litigation decisions. Did the district court properly find Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Stenehjem and Pelham barred by discretionary immunity?
Add Docket 20080056 RSS