Lanners-Ford v. State of Minnesota
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:20-cv-01206
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Lanners-Ford v. State of Minnesota: Judge Magnuson denied a stay and restricted Lanners-Ford from removing related juvenile proceedings without prior permission.
Cassandra Kimberly Lanners-Ford was placed on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list and may not remove or try to remove the specified juvenile case or related proceedings without prior permission from a district or magistrate judge.
What happened
In Lanners-Ford v. State of Minnesota, the court considered Lanners-Ford’s second request to pause the case and whether to restrict her future filings related to a Hennepin County juvenile case. She had filed several motions and other documents after the court ordered her to explain why a filing restriction should not be imposed.
The court said Lanners-Ford’s submissions did not show that the proposed restriction was inappropriate. It found that she had repeatedly tried to remove a juvenile case that could not be removed and continued to rely on legal arguments the court considered frivolous.
Judge Magnuson denied the second motion to stay, placed Lanners-Ford on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list, and barred her from removing or trying to remove that juvenile case or related proceedings without prior permission from a district or magistrate judge.
The detailed version
- Lanners-Ford v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:20-cv-01206
- Paul Magnuson
- June 18, 2020
Background
On June 3, 2020, the court ordered Cassandra Kimberly Lanners-Ford to explain why it should not prevent her from filing future actions related to Hennepin County juvenile case number 27-JV-19-1016 without prior court permission. Lanners-Ford appealed an earlier order that, according to this opinion, also remanded the matter and denied her application to proceed without paying district court fees.
Lanners-Ford filed numerous documents, writ requests, and motions, including a motion for reconsideration, a motion for a writ of mandamus directed to the Chief Judge, two motions to stay, and an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The court had already denied her motion for reconsideration, her first motion to stay, and her request to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal. This order addressed her second motion to stay and the proposed filing restriction.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that federal courts may issue orders needed to protect their authority and may impose reasonable filing restrictions on litigants who abuse the judicial process with frivolous or malicious litigation. It stated that a filing restriction is a type of injunction, meaning the affected person must receive notice and an opportunity to respond. The court found that its show-cause order provided Lanners-Ford with that notice and opportunity.
The court concluded that none of Lanners-Ford’s submissions showed that the proposed restriction was unnecessary or improper. It said her continued reliance on what it described as frivolous and meritless arguments—including admiralty-law arguments and arguments associated with the Sovereign Citizen movement—supported imposing the restriction. The court also stated that Lanners-Ford had attempted three times to remove an action that could not be removed, despite repeated warnings that those attempts had no legal foundation.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Lanners-Ford’s second motion to stay was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to place her on the District of Minnesota’s restricted-filer list. She was prohibited from removing or attempting to remove juvenile case number 27-JV-19-1016, or other proceedings related to that juvenile matter, unless she first received permission from a district or magistrate judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.