Hubbard v. Township

Background

Plaintiff Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard filed this lawsuit on January 15, 2026, against twenty government entities, including Duluth Township, the Two Harbors Police Department, the City of Hermantown, the City of Superior Wisconsin Police Department, the City of Duluth Police Headquarters, the Lake County MN Sheriff's Office, the Douglas County WI Sheriff's Department, the St. Louis County MN Sheriff's Office, the UMD Police Department, the UMD IT Department, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota IT Services (MNIT), St. Louis County MN, the Lake Superior Forensic Technology and Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC), the Minnesota Fusion Center (MNFC), the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), and the 6th Judicial District Court of Minnesota.

Hubbard simultaneously applied to proceed without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis, or IFP), which subjects his complaint to mandatory pre-service review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He also filed a motion for a protective order and numerous supporting exhibits.

Allegations

Hubbard's complaint spans approximately twenty-five pages and alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy among these twenty entities. The court highlighted the following clusters of allegations as illustrative:

- Hubbard claimed to have found at least fifteen U.S. Bank Visa credit cards issued in his name, each with $25,000 monthly limits, and alleged that evidence of this fraud was stolen from his apartment in January 2026 and replaced with older documents. - He alleged that software programs called "Rave Guardian" and "XM Guardian" were secretly installed on his electronic devices and vehicles to track him, and that this software caused 911 dispatchers to describe him as a "mental patient." He also alleged that state agents deleted his Google Drive files in real time while he was physically present in the St. Louis County Public Safety Building. - He appeared to allege that he was placed on a sex-offender registry without a conviction, citing "City-Data" icons on maps and the repeated "chirping" of strangers' phones as passersby triggered community-alert applications. - He claimed that a convicted felon impersonated him in his Minnesota state-court divorce proceedings, manipulating the court to steal his business and assets, and that he was never served with notice of those proceedings. - He alleged that defendants interfered with his healthcare providers to force the discontinuation of his ADHD medication, causing him "unbearable suffering."

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court must dismiss an IFP proceeding at any time if the action is "frivolous." A claim is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Importantly, as to factual frivolousness, the statute gives courts the power to look past the face of the complaint and dismiss claims whose factual allegations are "clearly baseless" — including those that are "fanciful," "fantastic," or "delusional." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). Such a finding is appropriate when the alleged facts "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Id. at 33.

Ruling

Judge Provinzino dismissed Hubbard's complaint in its entirety as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), finding no arguable factual basis for the claim that twenty separate government entities across two states conspired to install tracking software, hire imposters to impersonate him in court, manipulate bystanders' phones to chirp at him, or interfere with his medications. The court found his allegations fell squarely within the "fanciful" or "fantastic" category that warrants dismissal as frivolous.

The IFP application and the motion for a protective order were each denied as moot, given the dismissal of the underlying complaint.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, meaning any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal would be denied on that basis.

Additional Grounds (Alternative)

The court noted that even if the complaint were not frivolous, it would be subject to dismissal for several additional reasons:

Filing History and Warning

The court identified at least five prior complaints filed by Hubbard in the District of Minnesota making similar allegations against many of the same defendants, all of which were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) before service. The court warned Hubbard that if he continues to file frivolous or meritless complaints in the District of Minnesota, he may be restricted from initiating new lawsuits without either being represented by an attorney or obtaining prior written approval from a judicial officer in the district. The court cited In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1988), for the proposition that there is no constitutional right to access the courts to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions.