Alvar v. State of Minnesota
Ryan W. Alvar v. State of Minnesota; St. Louis County; City of Duluth; Douglas County; City of Superior; Judge Shawn Pearson; Referee Kathryn Bergstrom; Child Support Magistrate Clarissa Ek; Judge Nicole Hopps; Judge Theresa Neo; Guardian ad Litem Jordan Mae Dokken; Landreville & Schwandt, P.A.; Alexander M. Landreville, Attorney; Katelynn Schwandt, Attorney; Reinke, Taylor, PLLC; Shawn C. Reinke, Attorney; Victoria M.B. Taylor, Attorney; Johnson Turner PLLC; Katie M. Jarvi, Attorney; Safe Haven Shelter and Resource Center; Justice North Civil Legal Aid; Amy Jo Schmidt; Domestic Abuse Intervention Program; Kartta Group; Sara Bovee; Ashlan Mahan; Chief Judge Leslie Beiers
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02792
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Alvar v. State of Minnesota, Judge Menendez dismissed the injunctive and declaratory claims without prejudice and stayed the damages claims while state child-custody proceedings continue.
Parents involved in state-court child-custody, child-support, or order-for-protection disputes who attempt to bring federal civil rights lawsuits to challenge or halt those ongoing state proceedings. Also relevant to litigants seeking to understand the limits of federal court intervention in active state family court cases, and to attorneys, judges, guardians ad litem, and private organizations named as defendants in such suits.
What happened
In Alvar v. State of Minnesota, Ryan W. Alvar sued dozens of defendants — including state judges, attorneys, domestic violence organizations, and mental health evaluators — claiming his constitutional rights to due process, free speech, and freedom from unreasonable seizure were violated during ongoing state-court child-custody and order-for-protection proceedings in St. Louis County, Minnesota. Alvar sought emergency court intervention to block a contempt order that had him briefly jailed for posting a confidential guardian ad litem report about his children online, as well as sweeping injunctions to take custody of his children, halt child-support payments, and reform the family court system.
The core legal issue was whether a federal court should step in while those state proceedings are still active. The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine — a rule that generally prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state court cases — and found that child-custody proceedings are exactly the kind of state proceedings federal courts should stay out of. The court found that Minnesota has a strong interest in these proceedings, the state court is the proper forum to raise constitutional challenges, and no exception to the abstention rule applied here.
Judge Katherine Menendez denied Alvar's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, dismissed without prejudice his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and stayed his remaining claims for money damages until the state-court proceedings — including any appeals — are fully concluded. The court also noted additional obstacles to Alvar's case, including that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine likely bars federal review of already-decided state court rulings, that judges and the guardian ad litem likely have absolute immunity from suit, and that the private defendants cannot be sued under the federal civil rights statute he used because they are not government actors.
The detailed version
- Alvar v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:25-cv-02792
- Katherine Menendez
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Ryan W. Alvar filed a 276-page amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal civil rights statute allowing suits against persons acting under color of state law — against approximately 28 defendants. The defendants include the State of Minnesota, St. Louis County, the City of Duluth, Douglas County and the City of Superior (Wisconsin), multiple state-court judges and judicial officers, a court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), attorneys for both Alvar and the opposing party, domestic violence organizations, mental health evaluators, and Amy Jo Schmidt (the mother of his children and opposing party in the state proceedings).
The lawsuit arises from ongoing state-court child-custody and order-for-protection (OFP) proceedings in St. Louis County Family Court. Alvar alleges violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government, and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure.
Key Facts Alleged
Alvar initiated state-court proceedings after claiming Schmidt assaulted him in July 2024. Schmidt obtained an emergency OFP from Judge Shawn Pearson, which Alvar claims was issued based on false allegations and without adequate evidentiary review. Alvar filed his own custody petition in August 2024.
During the proceedings, Alvar alleged that Schmidt illegally accessed his Dropbox files and that she and her attorney used that information to obtain an unfavorable child-support order. Child Support Magistrate Catherine Baker ordered Alvar to pay $1,298 monthly in child support.
A central dispute involves the GAL report prepared by Jordan Mae Dokken in January 2025. Judge Theresa Neo ordered the report kept confidential on March 6, 2025. Alvar nonetheless posted the report on his website and social media to criticize it and the family court system. Chief Judge Leslie Beiers held a contempt hearing in July 2025 and found Alvar in contempt. Alvar was briefly jailed and ordered to pay $3,240 in attorney fees to Schmidt. He was released after removing the report from his website.
Alvar's Requested Relief
Alvar sought compensatory and punitive damages against various defendants. He also sought declaratory judgments (court declarations stating the law) and extensive injunctive relief (court orders requiring or prohibiting specific actions), including: immediate legal and physical custody of his children; suspension of child-support orders; prohibition on contempt proceedings related to the GAL report; and broad systemic reforms of Minnesota family court operations.
Legal Analysis
Younger Abstention
The central legal doctrine applied is Younger abstention, drawn from Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). This doctrine instructs federal courts to generally refrain from interfering with pending state proceedings that fall within certain categories. The court raised this issue after the State of Minnesota argued it in response to Alvar's injunction motion, giving Alvar an opportunity to respond.
The court applied the three-part test from Wassef v. Tibben, 68 F.4th 1083 (8th Cir. 2023):
First prong — exceptional circumstances
Child-custody proceedings qualify as one of the three categories where Younger abstention is appropriate — specifically, as civil proceedings involving orders that further the state courts' ability to perform their judicial functions. The court cited Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming, 904 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2018) and Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979) as authority that state child-welfare proceedings fall squarely within Younger's reach.
Second prong — Middlesex factors
The court found that the state proceedings are (1) judicial in nature, (2) implicate Minnesota's compelling interest in protecting minor children, and (3) provide Alvar an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. The court noted Alvar had the right to file motions and to appeal adverse rulings, and nothing showed he had been prevented from raising constitutional arguments.
Third prong — exceptions
The court found no applicable exception. No evidence suggested the state proceedings were brought in bad faith or for harassment, or that any other extraordinary circumstances warranted overriding abstention.
Disposition of Claims Under Younger
Because Younger abstention applies: - Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed without prejudice (meaning Alvar may potentially refile after state proceedings conclude), as they would directly interfere with the ongoing state custody case. - Claims for monetary damages were not dismissed but were stayed (paused) pending final resolution of the state-court proceedings, including any appeals. The court relied on Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999) for the principle that a stay — rather than dismissal — is appropriate when damages claims are also at issue.
Emergency Injunction Motion
Alvar's July 11, 2025 emergency motion sought to block enforcement of the contempt incarceration order issued by Chief Judge Beiers regarding his posting of the GAL report. The court applied the four-factor Dataphase test for preliminary injunctions — irreparable harm, balance of harms, likelihood of success on the merits, and public interest — and found Alvar failed to show likelihood of success on the merits. The abstention ruling independently required denial of this relief. The motion was denied.
Additional Barriers Noted
The court identified several other significant legal obstacles, without making final rulings on them:
- Rooker-Feldman doctrine: Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments. To the extent Alvar challenges completed state-court rulings (such as the OFP issued by Judge Pearson), the Rooker-Feldman doctrine likely bars those claims.
- Judicial and quasi-judicial immunity: State-court judges acting in their official capacity have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits. The GAL likewise has absolute immunity for acts within her court-appointed duties, even if her conduct was alleged to be wrongful. See Woodworth v. Hulshof, 891 F.3d 1083 (8th Cir. 2018); Arseneau v. Pudlowski, 110 F.4th 1114 (8th Cir. 2024).
- Private actors under § 1983: Section 1983 only applies to persons acting under color of state law. Private defendants (attorneys, organizations, evaluators) can only be liable if they were willing participants in joint activity with state actors to violate constitutional rights. The court found nothing in the record to support such a "meeting of the minds" between private defendants and state actors.
The court noted that Alvar himself, in various parts of his complaint, had already disclaimed damages against defendants likely shielded by immunity (including the State, judges, and the GAL), seeking only injunctive or declaratory relief from them.
Orders Issued
- Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 5): DENIED.
- Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26): DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it brings claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Remainder of the action (damages claims): STAYED pending final resolution of state-court child-custody proceedings, including appeals.
- Alvar must notify the court within 30 days after the state-court matter concludes.
- The Clerk of Court was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the St. Louis County District Court, Sixth Judicial District.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.