Holkesvig v. Welte
Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant
Peter David Welte, Defendant and Appellee
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Wickham Corwin
|Nature of Action:||Other (Civil)|
|Term:||06/2011  Argument: 06/29/2011|
|ND cite:||2011 ND 161|
801 N.W.2d 712
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
l. Did the District Court err by granting summary judgment dismissal on 8-25-10?
II. Is absolute prosecutorial immunity, absolute witness immunity, qualified immunity, and discretionary immunity a legal, ethical and justifiable defense? Ill. Does judicial estoppel apply in this case?
IV. Does my 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, along with Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, offer' any protection from malicious prosecution, malice, false arrest, and false imprisonment charges?
V. Whether the Due Process Rights were violated at the Court Hearings on 4-23-10, 8-25-10 and 2-1-11.
VI. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees and by implying that the Plaintiffs claims were frivolous, when in fact the Summary Judgment and Statement of Costs from 8-25-10, as well as the Memorandum and Order and Amended Judgment from 2-1-11, was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed and the Defendant's claims contain false information.
Reply Brief Issues:
1. Whether false and misleading information was used to violate my civil rights?
2. Did the Plaintiff establish essential elements to support his claims?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Peter Welte and Meredith Larson because of absolute prosecutorial immunity since Plaintiff's claims concern their actions in successfully prosecuting the underlying criminal case against the Plaintiff?
II. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Chris Smith because of absolute witness immunity since Plaintiff's claims concern Smith action providing evidence in the underlying criminal case?
III. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants because of qualified immunity since none of the Defendants transgressed a bright line or violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiff?
IV. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants because of discretionary immunity?
V. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims because of judicial estoppel since Plaintiff is pursuing civil liability in this case based on facts for which he plead guilty?
VI. Did the trial court properly dismiss the Plaintiff's claims because the Plaintiff did not establish essential elements of his claims?
VII. Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by taxing costs and disbursements and attorneys' fees as a sanction?
|Add Docket 20100315 RSS|
|1||09/22/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/20/2010|
|2||09/22/2010 2nd NOA filed in trial court 9/20/10|
|3||09/22/2010 This case is consolidated w/20100316 & 20100317. Make all docket entries, except ROA, DIS, &|
|4||09/22/2010 MAN codes, in this case|
|5||10/13/2010 REQ. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|6||10/14/2010 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 11/29/2010|
|7||10/18/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL (7 VOLUMES) & SEPARATES (ENTRY NOS. 34(DVD), 94 & 95).|
|8||10/25/2010 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Record dated October 20, 2010 (Entry No. 104).|
|9||11/19/2010 MOTION For Remand. RspDue: 12/09/2010|
|10||11/19/2010 E-FILED MOTION|
|11||11/19/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte to allow response to Motion for Remand)|
|12||11/23/2010 E-mail notice from Dan Gaustad that he will be responding and using his full time.|
|13||11/23/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAT). Granted: 12/20/2010|
|14||12/03/2010 Response Filed to Motion to Remand|
|15||12/03/2010 EFILED RESPONSE|
|16||12/08/2010 Reply to Response|
|17||12/15/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (MOT for Remand). Granted|
|18||12/15/2010 ORDER OF REMAND|
|19||12/15/2010 Order/Judgment Sent to Parties|
|20||02/11/2011 Second Notice of Appeal filed in the trial court on February 11, 2011.|
|21||02/18/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte due to remand)|
|22||02/18/2011 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 03/23/2011|
|23||02/18/2011 Clerk of District Court notified ROA due no later than 3/23/2011|
|24||02/21/2011 MOTION FOR STAY. RspDue: 03/07/2011|
|25||02/21/2011 E-FILED MOTION|
|26||02/22/2011 Further information received from Mr. Holkesvig on Motion for Stay|
|27||03/03/2011 Response Filed to Motion for Stay|
|28||03/03/2011 EFILED RESPONSE|
|29||03/03/2011 Originally ANT due to withdrawal of motion for stay|
|30||03/03/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|31||03/03/2011 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAT). Granted: 04/25/2011|
|32||03/07/2011 MOTION TO REINSTATE MOTION FOR STAY|
|33||03/07/2011 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (motion to reinstate motion for stay). Granted|
|34||03/09/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Mot/Stay/Appeal). Denied|
|35||03/10/2011 Order Denying Motion for Stay Sent to Parties|
|36||04/01/2011 Electronic RECORD ON APPEAL (entry nos. 1 - 173) (Refiled)|
|37||04/11/2011 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 4-6-11 (Attachments to Entry Nos. 34 & 47) (Electronic)|
|38||04/11/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|39||04/11/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|40||04/14/2011 DISK - e-mailed|
|41||04/14/2011 Returned one copy of the ATB to Mr. Holkesvig|
|42||04/15/2011 Electronic Clerk's Supplemental Certificate of Appeal dated 4-15-11(Entry No. 179)|
|43||04/15/2011 Order for Transcript|
|44||04/20/2011 Electronic Clerk's Supplemental Certificate of Appeal dated 4-20-11 (Entry no. 185 - NOTE:)|
|45||04/20/2011 #186 is Supplemental Certificate)|
|46||04/25/2011 Transcript dated August 25, 2010 & C.O.S.|
|47||04/25/2011 DISK - tra (8/25/10) (e-mailed)|
|48||04/26/2011 Transcripts dated April 23, 2010 & February 1, 2011 & C.O.S. (originals in ROA)|
|49||04/26/2011 DISK - TRA (4/23/10 & 2/1/11) (e-mailed)|
|50||05/13/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|51||05/13/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|52||05/13/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|53||05/13/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)|
|54||05/17/2011 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|55||05/18/2011 Received copies of AEA from CSD|
|56||05/18/2011 Received surcharge for AEB & AEA (Receipt #20321)|
|57||05/20/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|58||05/23/2011 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant|
|59||05/23/2011 DISK - RYB (e-mailed)|
|60||06/29/2011 APPEARANCES: Randy Holkesvig; Daniel L. Gaustad|
|61||06/29/2011 ARGUED: Randy Holkesvig; Daniel L. Gaustad|
|62||06/29/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|63||08/18/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|64||08/18/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|65||08/18/2011 Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellees|
|66||08/19/2011 Judgment E-mailed to Parties|
|67||08/27/2011 PETITION FOR REHEARING of Appellant|
|68||08/27/2011 Appendix for Petition for Rehearing|
|69||08/27/2011 DISK - PER (e-mailed)|
|70||09/15/2011 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Pet/Rehearing). Denied|
|71||09/19/2011 Petition for Motion to Stay Pending Writ of Certiorari|
|72||09/19/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (Pet/Mot/Stay/Pending/Writ of Certiorari). Granted: 10/22/2011|
|73||09/29/2011 Electronic Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 9-28-11 (Entry Nos. 187-201)|
|74||10/20/2011 Request for Ext. of Time for Stay of Mandate, entitled "Response as to Why Writ of Certiorari|
|75||10/20/2011 Hasn't Been Submitted Within 30 Days"|
|76||10/21/2011 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Req/Ext/Time/Stay/Mandate). Granted: 11/15/2011|
|77||10/24/2011 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Electronic Record dated October 21, 2011 (Entry Nos. 202-218).|
|78||10/24/2011 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Electronic Record dated October 21, 2011 (Entry Nos. 219-221).|
|79||10/27/2011 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Electronic Record dated 10/26/11 (Entry Nos. 222-229).|
|80||10/27/2011 No docket Entry No. 226 or corresponding document-Entry Error.|