Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County

Background

Steve Salvador Ybarra filed this federal lawsuit on May 1, 2025, arising from his divorce and child-custody dispute pending in Dakota County, Minnesota state court. He named as defendants three First Judicial District judges (Hon. David Lutz, Hon. Tanya O'Brien, and Hon. Dannia L. Edwards), court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Lydia Clemens, Legal Assistance of Dakota County (LADC) and its staff attorney Sharon Jones, his ex-wife Michelle Cathleen Ybarra, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Assistant Attorney General Jeff Timmerman. The court noted this was one of several federal cases Ybarra had filed concerning the same state proceedings.

Ybarra alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy among all defendants to interfere with the state proceedings and secure a favorable judgment for his ex-wife. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 (federal civil rights statutes), and under the civil RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d). He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the state proceedings, compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages under RICO, attorney's fees, criminal referrals, and federal monitoring of the state case. A May 19, 2025 Amended Complaint added Ellison and Timmerman and asserted claims under §§ 1983, 1985(2), 1986, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).

During the pendency of the motions to dismiss, the court stayed the case due to the volume of Ybarra's filings. Michelle Ybarra did not appear in the federal case.

Legal Standard

The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal: a complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. Conclusory allegations and threadbare recitals of legal elements are insufficient.

Younger Abstention — Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

The court first addressed Ybarra's requests for injunctions and declaratory judgments that would affect the state proceedings. Under the Younger abstention doctrine (named for Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)), federal courts must refrain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings when: (1) a state proceeding is ongoing; (2) it implicates important state interests; and (3) it provides an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.

All three factors were met. The divorce and custody case was ongoing in state court. The court found that domestic-relations matters — divorce and child custody — implicate important state interests, making abstention "particularly appropriate." And the state proceedings gave Ybarra an adequate forum, as his own filings described his active litigation there.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Ybarra's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against all defendants — including Michelle Ybarra on the court's own initiative — with prejudice. The court noted that while Younger dismissals are ordinarily without prejudice (because they rest on jurisdiction), it dismissed with prejudice here because all of Ybarra's claims also independently fail under Rule 12(b)(6) or are frivolous. This ruling encompassed numerous emergency motions and requests for injunctions and declaratory relief.

State Defendants — Immunity

Judges Lutz, O'Brien, and Edwards

The court dismissed all claims against the three judges on grounds of absolute judicial immunity. Judges are immune from suits for money damages for acts taken in their judicial capacity, even if those acts are alleged to be malicious or corrupt. The only exceptions are acts taken outside judicial capacity or in the complete absence of jurisdiction. Here, Ybarra's allegations against the judges — denying hearings, issuing protective orders, showing alleged bias, failing to disclose conflicts — all concerned typical judicial functions. The court dismissed claims against the judges in both their individual and official capacities.

GAL Lydia Clemens

GAL Clemens was likewise shielded by absolute immunity. Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Arseneau v. Pudlowski), guardians ad litem are absolutely immune for acts within their court-appointed duties, even if those acts were wrongful. All of Ybarra's allegations against Clemens concerned acts within her court-appointed role. Claims against her in both capacities were dismissed.

Attorney General Ellison and Assistant Attorney General Timmerman

Both Ellison and Timmerman were found absolutely immune as government attorneys defending a civil suit — a well-established rule protecting government advocates. This immunity covered Timmerman's personal capacity as well. The court also found Ybarra's underlying allegations against them (primarily that Timmerman had a prior employment connection to Dakota County and was therefore tainted) facially lacking in legal merit, though immunity alone was sufficient.

The court also denied Ybarra's motion to disqualify the Attorney General's Office from representing the State Defendants, finding Ybarra lacked standing because he alleged no personal harm from the representation. The court also noted its suspicion that Ellison and Timmerman were named as defendants specifically to manufacture a disqualification conflict — a tactic courts will not countenance.

All claims for damages against State Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

LADC Defendants — Failure to State a Claim

Section 1983 Claims

To hold a private party liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the private party was a willful participant in joint activity with a state actor — i.e., there was a "meeting of the minds" between the private party and a state actor to violate constitutional rights. Mere allusion to conspiracy is insufficient; specificity and factual support are required.

Ybarra failed to meet this standard. He could not show that Jones exercised state power (his own complaint conceded LADC is funded by private charitable organizations, not government funds), and he provided no specific facts suggesting a meeting of the minds between Jones and any state actor. His allegations of "collusion" between Jones and GAL Clemens amounted to nothing more than Clemens making custody recommendations and Jones agreeing with them. Allegations regarding Jones and the judges were, at most, consistent with Jones concealing malfeasance from the judges — the opposite of coordination.

Sections 1985(3) and 1986 Claims

Section 1985(3) requires pleading a civil conspiracy to deprive persons of civil rights, including class-based discriminatory animus, with particularity and specific material facts showing an agreement. Ybarra's allegations were entirely conclusory; he failed to plead any discriminatory class-based animus. Section 1986 claims are entirely derivative of valid § 1985 claims and therefore also failed.

Civil RICO Claims (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d))

A civil RICO claim requires: (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. An association-in-fact enterprise requires a common purpose, relationships among associates, and sufficient longevity; acts taken independently and without coordination cannot establish an enterprise.

Ybarra failed to plead a RICO enterprise. His connections between LADC Defendants and co-defendants consisted almost entirely of their shared participation in his legal proceedings, plus the bare allegation that Judge Lutz had previously done pro bono work for LADC — with no details about the duration or nature of that relationship. The alleged conduct looked like independent, uncoordinated behaviors rather than a RICO operation. Additionally, litigation activity — without allegations of corruption — does not constitute predicate RICO conduct under Eighth Circuit precedent. Because the § 1962(c) claim failed, the § 1962(d) conspiracy claim also failed as a matter of law.

All claims against LADC Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

Michelle Cathleen Ybarra — Improper Service and Frivolousness

The court dismissed claims against Michelle Ybarra on its own initiative on two independent grounds.

First, Ybarra failed to properly serve her. Rule 4 requires personal service by a non-party adult, with a supporting affidavit. The proof of service Ybarra filed listed only the first name "Danielle" as server, lacked a surname, and bore what appeared to be Ybarra's own signature in place of the server's — in contrast to the proper proofs of service filed for other defendants, which identified a named process server and showed a $50 fee. The court found Ybarra had not carried his burden to establish valid service, and noted concern that Ybarra may have misrepresented the service, warning that false statements under penalty of perjury carry consequences.

Second, the claims against Michelle Ybarra were frivolous. Her alleged conduct — misrepresenting finances on a legal aid application, noncompliance with discovery requests, and providing statements the GAL that Ybarra disputed — did not give rise to § 1983 claims (no allegations of state action or coordination with state officials) or RICO claims (no relationship with co-defendants, no predicate criminal acts). The claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Miscellaneous Motions

The court denied all of Ybarra's numerous pending motions, including: - Multiple emergency motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions - Motions for sanctions against Sharon Jones and Jeff Timmerman under Rule 11 - Motion to disqualify the First Judicial District bench - Motion to disqualify the Attorney General's Office - Motion for default judgment and declaratory custody relief - Motions for declaratory relief regarding custody orders - Motion to strike filings by Timmerman - Various other requests for federal oversight and relief

The court also warned Ybarra — who appears to be representing himself — that he is bound by Rule 11's requirements regarding truthfulness and non-frivolous filings, and flagged specific concerns about a potentially misquoted or fabricated case citation.

Disposition

Both motions to dismiss were granted. The claims against Michelle Ybarra were dismissed on the court's own initiative. The entire action was dismissed with prejudice. All pending motions were denied.