Fredin v. Kreil
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01929
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Fredin v. Kreil, Judge Nelson denied Brock Fredin permission to seek reconsideration and denied his request to pause an injunction.
Brock Fredin, who represented himself, was denied permission to seek reconsideration and was denied a stay of the injunction. The defendants and the court were affected because the injunction remained in effect.
What happened
In Fredin v. Kreil, Brock Fredin asked the court to let him seek reconsideration of an earlier sanctions order and to pause an injunction while he appealed. The injunction required him to remove websites and videos that the court found were created to harass and intimidate defendants and the court.
Fredin argued that the sanctions order violated his free-speech rights and submitted evidence about his purpose in creating the websites and videos. The court said these arguments had already been considered, the evidence could have been submitted earlier, and pausing the injunction would harm the defendants, the court, and the judicial process.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied Fredin’s request for permission to file a reconsideration motion and denied his request to stay the injunction. The court also noted that Fredin had said he would not follow the sanctions order and had posted additional material while the request was pending.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Kreil · No. 0:20-cv-01929
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
The order addresses related cases brought by Brock Fredin against Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil. Fredin represented himself. On November 23, 2020, the court sanctioned Fredin under its inherent authority to address abuses of the judicial process. The sanction included an injunction requiring him to remove websites and videos that the court found were created in bad faith to harass and intimidate defendants’ counsel and a magistrate judge. The earlier order warned that violating the injunction could lead to additional penalties.
Fredin then filed a letter asking for permission to file a motion for reconsideration and asking the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the injunction while he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Fredin stated that he would not follow the sanctions order. The court also noted that he posted additional material disparaging Jamie Kreil’s attorneys’ firm and the district judge while his request was pending.
Request to Reconsider
Under the District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 7.1(j), a party may not file a motion for reconsideration without the court’s permission and must show compelling circumstances. Reconsideration is limited to correcting clear legal or factual errors or addressing newly discovered evidence; it may not be used to present evidence that could have been submitted earlier or to reargue the underlying motion.
The court rejected Fredin’s argument that the sanctions order violated the First Amendment because the court had already considered and rejected that argument. The court had previously held that the First Amendment did not protect publishing baseless and inflammatory remarks about opposing counsel or judicial officers when the purpose was to harass them into agreeing to favorable settlement terms or judicial decisions. The court also found that Fredin’s submitted declaration did not justify reconsideration because the evidence could have been offered earlier. His allegations that defendants had harassed him online had also been raised previously and did not establish compelling circumstances.
Request to Stay the Injunction
The court explained that staying an order during an appeal is an extraordinary remedy. It considered whether Fredin was likely to succeed on appeal, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lay.
The court emphasized that the earlier order imposed a sanction for abuse of the judicial process rather than a preliminary injunction. Because the injunction was intended to address that abuse, the court found that staying it would substantially harm 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 irreparable harm. His continued refusal to follow the order and his additional postings further supported denying a stay.
Disposition
The court DENIED Fredin’s Letter Request for Permission to File Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Injunction in the three related cases. This ruling denied both permission to file a reconsideration motion and the request to stay the November 23 injunction.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.