Holmseth v. Goddard

• Docket Number: 2:23-CV-11
• Decision Date: 25 August 2023
• Parties: TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDRIA HANNELORE GODDARD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

1

TIMOTHY CHARLES HOLMSETH, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDRIA HANNELORE GODDARD, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:23-CV-11

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville Division

August 25, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CYNTHIA RICHARDSON WYRICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. [Doc. 16]. This matter was referred by the District Court for a Report and Recommendation [Doc. 17] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Timothy Charles Holmseth filed a Complaint against Defendants Alexandria Hannelore Goddard, Bonnie Conaway^[1], Cythia Fregiato Mark DeWine [sic], the State of Ohio, and Frank Fregiato on February 6, 2023. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint against all Defendants on March 1, 2023. [Doc. 6]. Therein, Plaintiff alleges that he is a journalist and Defendants have conspired to silence him and violate his civil rights. [Doc. 6, p. 1-2]. Plaintiff states that on August 19, 2022, he learned that he had been charged with “Complicity to Menacing by Stalking” in Ohio when he saw a report about himself on YouTube and a government website. Id. at p. 3. On January 30, 2023, he learned that a civil stalking protection order had been entered against him in Belmont County, Ohio. Id. at p. 1.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Goddard (who is described by Plaintiff as “a high profile media personality and agent” and as an “un-licensed and un-regulated Agent of an attorney from Florida named Kim Lowry Picazio”),^[2] filed for the protection order to extort Plaintiff in retaliation against Plaintiff for filing a federal court lawsuit against her previously in the Middle District of Tennessee^[3] and reporting on her actions and those of Defendants DeWine and the State of Ohio in his role as a journalist. Id. at p. 1-2, 12, 18. Plaintiff likewise claims that the order granting Defendant Goddard's request was issued in retaliation for Plaintiff's actions. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that all Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly serve him with notice of the civil stalking protection order. Id. at p. 12-14. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Goddard has defamed him through various social media posts in which she shared information about Plaintiff's criminal case in Belmont County, Ohio. Id. at 21. Plaintiff asserts that the criminal charges against him were based on fraud. Id.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has violated his First and Second Amendment rights and his right to due process by placing his name and identifying information in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Id. at p. 13. Plaintiff requests $20,000,000.00 in monetary relief and an injunction requiring Belmont County, Ohio, and the State of Ohio to remove all references to him from government websites and requiring the FBI to remove his name from NCIC. Id. at p. 25. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a temporary injunction until the matter is resolved if it is not inclined to issue a permanent injunction at this point in the litigation. Id.

On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. [Doc. 16]. Plaintiff does not request specific relief in the motion^[4], but he appears to be asking the Court to void certain state court orders and/or to enjoin Defendant Goddard from making public statements about Plaintiff.^[5] Though he requests specific injunctive relief in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not reiterate that request in his motion. Plaintiff asserts that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, because without the issuance of a TRO he would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.” Id. at p. 4. Additionally, he claims that he has attempted to notify Defendant Goddard of his motion, but she has moved out of the State of Ohio to evade service. Id. The Court notes that Plaintiff's motion, which is 71 pages in length including attachments, reads more like a new complaint rather than a motion based upon the information contained in Plaintiff's original complaint. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will provide some leeway to Plaintiff in considering the new information contained in the motion.

Plaintiff first contends that Defendant Goddard is using fraudulently obtained restraining orders in a multi-state conspiracy to block information from being published by Plaintiff but provides no specifics as to how the restraining order is preventing him from publishing information. Id. at p. 1. The first of those is referenced above as the one obtained by Defendant Goddard in Ohio. Id. at p. 2. Two other orders were apparently obtained in Florida and Minnesota by Kim Lowry Picazo, who Plaintiff asserts is Defendant Goddard's attorney^[6]. Id. at p. 9-10. Plaintiff alleges that the orders prevent him from publicly discussing Defendant Goddard and two murder cases. Id. at p. 1-2, 4, 10. Plaintiff has previously reported on the murder case of State of Florida v. Neeley Petrie Blanchard and the potential murder of Christopher Hallett, who Plaintiff alleges was his “power of attorney.” Id. at p. 4, 10. Plaintiff asserts that because he is a journalist and war correspondent, these orders violate his First Amendment right to free speech and the press as well as a Department of Defense manual which discusses protections for journalists against unlawful combatants. Id. at p. 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Goddard is an unlawful combatant under the “Law of War” and is not an American citizen. Id. at p. 3. He further alleges that Defendant Goddard is conspiring with William Kevin Murtaugh of Apopka, Florida, who Plaintiff contends threatened him on Twitter by posting a photograph of James “Whitey” Bulger which Plaintiff claims included “a threat directed against Plaintiff that implied Plaintiff should beware, because he (Murtaugh) is in fact James ‘Whitey” Bulger.” Id. at p. 1. Mr. Murtaugh is not a defendant to this action.

Plaintiff then goes on to further attack the restraining orders against him as procedurally deficient. He alleges that the Ohio restraining order is invalid because he was never properly served with the order. Id. at p. 2. More specifically, Plaintiff contends the orders were never mailed and that USPS and FedEx tracking numbers were fabricated to create the appearance of service^[7]. Id. He alleges that he does not live in Ohio, was not present in the state during the dates relevant to the restraining order and has never communicated with Defendant Goddard. Id. at p.

2. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the Florida restraining order is invalid because a Broward County, Florida State Attorney “rejected” the order. Id. at p. 12. Plaintiff includes a memo from State Attorney Marie Wolf in which she explains that a case seeking a restraining order against Plaintiff was transferred from the Domestic Violence Unit to the Misdemeanor Trial Unit of the Office of the State Attorney. Id. Later, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Goddard and Ms. Picazio traveled to Minnesota seeking another restraining order based on the “rejected” Florida case. Id.

Plaintiff next takes issue with certain tweets he alleges Defendant Goddard published about him on Twitter. Plaintiff attaches multiple screenshots of tweets by an account with the name “alex - spreadsheets for days” and a handle which appears to read “prinniedidit” Plaintiff does not provide sufficient proof to demonstrate that this Twitter account belongs to Defendant Goddard nor do any of the tweets attached refer to Plaintiff by name. The tweets include references to a restraining order and statements such as “[y]ou're an idiot who will be held accountable for your actions.” Id. at 15, 19. Plaintiff also includes photos of a woman wearing a t-shirt with the letters “FBI” on the front and an accompanying tweet that says, “I'm on assignment.” Id. at 18. It is not entirely clear why Plaintiff includes those tweets, but he appears to be alleging that Defendant Goddard is involved in a conspiracy with the FBI. See id. at p. 17.

Plaintiff also appears to assert that Ms. Picazio and Defendant Goddard have attempted to commit violence against him. Plaintiff states that they traveled from Minnesota to North Dakota searching for him because he did not appear that day for a hearing. Id. at 13. He has filed an exhibit marked “Exhibit H” which he contends contains a video of Ms. Picazio talking to Plaintiff's “power of attorney” Kirk Pendergrass. Id. Plaintiff submits that Ms. Picazio asked Mr. Pendergrass about Plaintiff's whereabouts and asked, “Where's Tim?” and “What would you like me to do? Kill him?” Id. The Court has reviewed Exhibit H and finds that Plaintiff's description does not accurately reflect the content of the video. The video is a recording of a YouTube video which has audio but no visual image until the last few seconds. Up to that point, the video is entirely dark. In the audio, an unidentified man and woman can be heard arguing about a restraining order which was issued in a civil court. She states that a restraining order was the “only remedy [she] had”. She appears to have said something about a restraining order being necessary to protect children earlier in the video, but the audio is muffled. The man then cuts her off to say, “that is not the only remedy.” She then responds with, “what would you like me to do?

Kill him?” After a few more moments of muffled conversation, she says, “I do not want him dead. I want him to leave me alone.”

Defendants Judge Frank Fregiato and Clerk of Courts Cynthia Fregiato (referring to themselves collectively as the “Belmont County Defendant...