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 1:30pm|
|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|
|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|
|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|
|26||02/22/2011||Further information received from Mr. Holkesvig on Motion for Stay|
|27||03/03/2011||Response Filed to Motion for Stay|
|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)|
|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|
|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.|