Fredin v. Miller
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-00466
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Fredin v. Miller, Judge Nelson denied Fredin’s request to seek reconsideration and stay an injunction requiring him to remove websites and videos.
Brock Fredin, the defendants Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil, their attorneys, and the court’s judicial process.
What happened
In Fredin v. Miller, Brock Fredin asked permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier sanctions order and asked the court to pause its injunction while he appealed.
The earlier order required Fredin to remove websites and videos that the court found were created in bad faith to harass and intimidate defendants, their lawyers, and the court. Fredin argued that the injunction violated his First Amendment rights and submitted evidence about his purpose, but the court said these arguments and evidence did not justify reconsideration.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the request. She also declined to pause the injunction, finding that doing so would harm the defendants, the court, and the judicial process, and that Fredin had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable injury without a pause.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Miller · No. 0:18-cv-00466
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
The court considered Brock Fredin’s letter request in three related cases: Case Nos. 17-cv-03058, 18-cv-00466, and 20-cv-01929. Fredin represented himself. He asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its November 23, 2020 sanctions order, and he asked the court to stay—that is, temporarily pause—the injunction in that order while he pursued an appeal.
The earlier sanctions order found that Fredin had created websites and videos in bad faith to harass and intimidate defendants and the court. The sanction included an injunction requiring Fredin to immediately remove the websites and videos, with a warning that failing to comply could lead to additional penalties. In his later request, Fredin stated that he would not follow the sanctions order. The court also noted that he posted additional material while the request was pending.
Request to Reconsider
The court explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence that could not previously have been presented. Under the court’s local rules, Fredin also had to show compelling circumstances before receiving permission to file such a motion.
The court rejected Fredin’s argument that the sanctions order violated the First Amendment because that argument had already been raised, briefed, and rejected in the sanctions order. The court had previously held that the First Amendment did not protect publishing baseless and inflammatory remarks about opposing counsel or judicial officers when done to harass them into conceding favorable settlement terms or judicial decisions.
The court also rejected Fredin’s declaration concerning whether he had tried to use the websites and videos to obtain favorable settlements. It found that this evidence could have been presented earlier. The court further concluded that Fredin’s allegation that defendants had harassed him online did not present compelling circumstances supporting reconsideration. The court stated that it had already decided the merits of Fredin’s claims concerning defendants’ older tweets.
Request to Stay the Injunction
The court treated a stay pending appeal as an extraordinary remedy and applied four factors: the applicant’s likelihood of success, possible irreparable injury without a stay, potential harm to other interested parties, and the public interest.
The court emphasized that the November 23 order imposed a sanction for abuse of the judicial process rather than a preliminary injunction. It found that pausing the sanction would substantially injure the defendants, the court, and the judicial process, and would conflict with the public interest. The court also found that Fredin had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal or established irreparable injury without a stay. His continued defiance and additional postings reinforced the court’s conclusion that a stay was not warranted.
Disposition
The court DENIED Fredin’s Letter Request for Permission to File Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Injunction. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.