Dieterle v. Dieterle

• Decision Date: 18 August 2022
• Docket Number: 20220094
• Parties: Shannon R. DIETERLE, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Angela DIETERLE, n/k/a Angela L. Hansen, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

978 N.W.2d 722

Shannon R. DIETERLE, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Angela DIETERLE, n/k/a Angela L. Hansen, Defendant and Appellant
and
State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest

No. 20220094

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Filed August 18, 2022
Rehearing Denied October 11, 2022

Rodney E. Pagel, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Angela L. Hansen, Cowdrey, CO, defendant and appellant, self-represented; submitted on brief.

Crothers, Justice.

¶1] Angela Hansen appeals from orders denying her motion for an order to show cause and her demand for a change of judge. Hansen is subject to a standing order prohibiting her from filing new motions without permission of court. We treat the district court's orders as ones denying Hansen permission to file new motions. Orders denying permission to file are not appealable; therefore, that part of the appeal is dismissed. Hansen also appeals from the award of sanctions for violation of the standing order, and rejecting her demand

[978 N.W.2d 724

for change of judge. On those issues, we affirm.

I

¶2] Hansen and Shannon Dieterle married in 2009 and have one child. The parties divorced in 2012, and Dieterle was awarded primary residential responsibility of the child. Dieterle v. Dieterle , 2013 ND 71, ¶ 12, 830 N.W.2d 571.

[¶3] Following the parties’ divorce, Hansen filed several motions primarily related to the district court's decisions on residential responsibility and parenting time. The court entered a standing order in April 2016 prohibiting Hansen from "filing any claim, motion, or document in Sheridan County, or in any other county, related to the issues of primary residential responsibility and/or parenting time regarding [the child], without first obtaining permission from the district court of the county in which she is attempting to file." The court entered the order due to the frivolous and duplicative nature of Hansen's motions.

[¶4] In December 2021, Hansen moved for an order to show cause for contempt against Dieterle, claiming he violated the judgment's visitation provisions. Dieterle responded by asking the district court to deny the motion on its merits, and to award attorney's fees as a sanction for Hansen's violation of the standing order. The court denied Hansen's motion and found her motion was frivolous. The court awarded Dieterle $1,500 in attorney's fees. Hansen then filed a demand for a change of judge, which was denied.

II

[¶5] Hansen appeals from district court orders denying her motion for an order to show cause. In postconviction relief proceedings, we have addressed and dismissed appeals similar to Hansen's when a litigant is subject to an order prohibiting new filings without leave of court. See Wheeler v. State , 2021 ND 182, 965 N.W.2d 416 ; Everett v. State , 2020 ND 257, 952...