Richter v. Richter
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01879
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Richter v. Richter, Judge Tostrud dismissed Gerald Donald Richter’s petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, denied his mandamus motion, and partly granted the trustee’s motion.
Gerald Donald Richter’s petition and mandamus motion were denied or dismissed without prejudice. Lawrence A. Richter’s motion to dismiss was granted insofar as it sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied in all other respects.
What happened
In Richter v. Richter, Gerald Donald Richter, representing himself, asked the federal court for a writ ordering or prohibiting action and for a declaration that state-court judgments were void. Lawrence A. Richter, acting as trustee, moved to dismiss, and also sought attorney’s fees and injunctive relief.
The court ruled that it lacked authority to hear the petition under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing state-court judgments. It granted the trustee’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied the motion in all other respects, denied Gerald Donald Richter’s mandamus motion, and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted in part and rejected in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He changed the recommended dismissal from with prejudice to without prejudice because a jurisdictional dismissal does not decide the merits.
The detailed version
- Richter v. Richter · No. 0:18-cv-01879
- Eric Tostrud
- May 22, 2019
Background
Gerald Donald Richter filed this action without a lawyer, seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition. He later moved for a writ of mandamus and a declaratory judgment stating that all judgments of state-court judge Waldemar Senyk, and judgments based on them, were void.
Lawrence A. Richter, identified as trustee of the Donald H. Richter Revocable Living Trust, moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and on other grounds. He also sought attorney’s fees and injunctive relief. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a report and recommendation advising that Gerald Donald Richter’s motion be denied; that Lawrence A. Richter’s motion be granted insofar as it sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied insofar as it sought attorney’s fees and injunctive relief; and that the petition be dismissed with prejudice.
Court’s analysis
Because Gerald Donald Richter objected to the report and recommendation, the district court reviewed it independently under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The court agreed that the petition had to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine, as applied by the court, prevented the federal district court from addressing the challenge to the state-court judgments.
The court also agreed that Lawrence A. Richter’s requests for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees were procedurally deficient. The court rejected the recommendation that the petition be dismissed with prejudice, explaining that a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not decide the merits of the claims and ordinarily is without prejudice.
Disposition
The court accepted in part and rejected in part the report and recommendation. It granted Lawrence A. Richter’s motion to dismiss insofar as it sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the motion in all other respects. It denied Gerald Donald Richter’s motion for issuance of a writ of mandamus with declaratory judgment. It dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.