Hansmeier v. Maclaughlin
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil 21-1167 (JRT/LIB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
| Parties | PAUL R. HANSMEIER, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MACLAUGHLIN; W. ANDERS FOLK; and PORTLAND CORPORATE CENTER, LLC, Defendants. |
Paul R. Hansmeier, Federal Correctional Institution, pro se plaintiff.
Kristen E. Rau, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendants.
Plaintiff Paul R. Hansmeier, proceeding pro se, has filed at least sixteen actions in this district alone challenging the constitutionality of the federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion statutes (the “Challenged Statutes”) against David MacLaughlin and W. Anders Folk (the “Federal Defendants”). The Court stayed the proceedings of the other active cases pending resolution of the motion to dismiss presently before the Court in this case. Because Hansmeier has litigated this exact issue not once, but at least twice before, and because all other elements of issue preclusion are met, Hansmeier's claims are barred by res judicata, and the Court will grant Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court will also dismiss Hansmeier's Complaint against Defendant Portland Corporate Center, LLC (“Portland”) for failure to effectuate service under Rule 4. Furthermore, because Hansmeier has shown he has no reservations in filing frivolous, meritless, duplicative and arguably harassing lawsuits against the Federal Defendants, the Court will impose appropriately tailored filing restrictions against him.
Hansmeier is currently serving a 168-month sentence at FCI-Sandstone. (Compl., at 3, May 6, 2021, Docket No. 1.) In 2018 Hansmeier, then a licensed attorney, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). (United States v. Hansmeier, No. 16-334 (JNE/KMM) Plea Agreement, Aug. 17, 2018, Docket No. 103.) The Eighth Circuit affirmed Hansmeier's conviction. United States v. Hansmeier, 988 F.3d 428, 441 (8th Cir. 2021). Following the conviction, the Minnesota Supreme Court disbarred him due to his “multi-year history of misconduct.” In re Disciplinary Action Against Hansmeier, 942 N.W.2d 167, 174 (Minn. 2020).
Since his incarceration, Hansmeier has been involved in copious amounts of litigation on the alleged unconstitutionality of the Challenged Statutes as applied to him. His lawsuits, all of which seek declaratory and injunctive relief, allege that the statutes are unconstitutional because they either prevent him from pursuing copyright enforcement or prevent him from assisting unidentified individuals pursuing Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) enforcement claims.
In May 2020, Hansmeier filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia against U.S. Attorney General William Barr asserting the unconstitutionality of the Challenged Statutes as they applied to copyright enforcement actions he sought to undertake. ( U.S. District Judge James Boasberg screened the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that the (Id., at Ex. B.) The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Id.) Hansmeier did not appeal this decision.
Hansmeier then filed a complaint against Attorney General Barr in the Western District of Wisconsin that was nearly identical to the case dismissed by Judge Boasberg. (Id., at Ex. E.) The case was closed because Hansmeier failed to pay the initial filing fee. (Id.)
Hansmeier was also busy in this district, filing a lawsuit before Judge Brasel in June 2020 against U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald for declaratory and injunctive relief on the constitutionality of the Challenged Statutes as they apply to his proposed ADA enforcement strategy. (Hansmeier v. MacDonald, No. 20-cv-1315 (NEB/LIB), Complaint, June 4, 2020, Docket No. 1.) Hansmeier voluntarily dismissed this case. (Defs.' Mem., Ex. D.)
Hansmeier was not finished, though, as he proceeded to file at least sixteen additional cases challenging the constitutionality of the Challenged Statutes as applied to him and his enforcement strategies, including this case.[1] As relevant to this motion, in Hansmeier I, Hansmeier filed a document titled “Suggestion of Mootness, ” and upon that motion, the Court found that the particular case no longer presented a live controversy, dismissing it without prejudice. (Hansmeier I, 20-cv-2155 (JRT/LIB), Suggestion Mootness, May 21, 2021, Docket No. 67; Hansmeier I, Order Denying Mots. at 5, Aug. 17, 2021, Docket No. 105.) In Hansmeier II, Hansmeier filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Hansmeier II, Notice Voluntary Dismissal, May 21, 2021, Docket No. 38.) The Court stayed the remaining actions until the motion to dismiss is resolved in this present case. (Hansmeier I, Order Denying Mots at 7-8.)
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court considers all facts alleged in the complaint as true to determine if the complaint states a “claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009).
When considering a motion to dismiss, pleadings submitted by pro se litigants are to be liberally construed and must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Notwithstanding this rule, courts have declined to extend the liberal construction standards to pro se attorneys. See, e.g., Garcia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 WL 5685518, *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2014). As such, the Court will not extend the less stringent standard to Hansmeier.
Issue preclusion applies if the following five elements are met: (1) the party sought to be precluded was a party, or in privity with a party, in the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the original lawsuit; (3) the issue must have been actually litigated; (4) the issue must have been determined by a final and valid judgment; and (5) determination of the issue in the prior action must have been essential to the judgment. Id. at 1102-03.
A res judicata defense is appropriate to raise on a motion to dismiss if the identity of the actions relevant to the argument are apparent from the face of the complaint. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 F.3d 759, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2012). The relevant cases to be considered are the following: (1) the District of Columbia case before Judge Boesberg; (2) the June 2020 lawsuit before Judge Brasel; (3) Hansmeier I; and (4) Hansmeier II. As each of the four relevant lawsuits include nearly identical parties and issues, the identity of these actions is apparent on the face of the complaint and the defense of res judicata can be considered on the Motion to Dismiss.
Res judicata incorporates two concepts-issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Sandy Lake Band of Miss. Chippewa v. United States, 714 F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir. 2013.) Issue preclusion forecloses relitigating an issue that has already been litigated and decided. Id. (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984)). “A party is precluded from litigating such a matter in a subsequent case, whether or not the issue arises on the same or different claim.” Id.
According to the Federal Defendants, there are two separate lawsuits that meet the elements of issue preclusion and warrant dismissal of Hansmeier's claims in this action under the doctrine of res judicata.
Hansmeier only seriously contests whether the second element of issue preclusion is met when analyzing his lawsuit before Judge Boasberg. However, the Court will consider each element in turn.
The first element-whether the parties were the same or in privity between lawsuits-is met here because the Federal Defendants are in privity with Attorney General Barr.
As to the second element, Hansmeier contends that the case before Judge Boasberg did not involve the same issue because the dismissal in that case centered on Hansmeier's use of the word “pursue” in his complaint. Hansmeier claims that Judge Boasberg focused on his request to enjoin the U.S. Attorney General from pursuing Hansmeier under the Challenged Statutes for his actions and concluded that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Since the Complaint in this case did not use the word pursue, Hansmeier argues the second element of issue preclusion is not met.
Hansmeier's assertions are unpersuasive for three reasons. First, Judge Boasberg clearly stated the matter would be dismissed because Hansmeier “stated no plausible claim to relief” as the Attorney General has absolute discretion to investigate and prosecute. (Defs.' Mem., Ex. B, at 2.) There is no mention of jurisdiction in Judge Boasberg's order. Second,...
To continue reading
Request your trial