Fredin v. Kreil
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01929
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Fredin v. Kreil, Judge Nelson denied Fredin’s requests to vacate or stay sanctions, granted in part and deferred in part defendants’ contempt-related motion.
Brock Fredin, who must report whether he removed the websites and videos; Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil, whose requests for contempt-related relief were partly granted and partly deferred.
What happened
In Fredin v. Kreil, Brock Fredin challenged an earlier order that required him to remove websites and videos the court found were used to harass and intimidate defendants, their lawyers, and the court.
Fredin asked the court to cancel that sanctions order and pause it while he appealed. The defendants asked the court to require Fredin to explain why he should not be held in contempt and to impose more sanctions, including possible attorney fees.
Judge Nelson denied Fredin’s motions to cancel and pause the sanctions order. She granted in part and deferred in part the defendants’ motions, giving Fredin two weeks to report whether he had removed the websites and videos before deciding on further sanctions.
The detailed version
- Fredin v. Kreil · No. 0:20-cv-01929
- Susan Nelson
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
This order addressed three motions filed across three related cases involving Brock Fredin, Lindsey Middlecamp, Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Jamie Kreil. Fredin represented himself. The court had previously found that Fredin created websites and videos in a bad-faith effort to harass and intimidate defendants, their counsel, and the court. That earlier sanctions order required Fredin to remove the websites and videos and warned that failure to comply could lead to further penalties.
Fredin did not comply with the sanctions order. He moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court in limited circumstances to provide relief from an order, to vacate the sanctions order. He argued that the order violated his First Amendment and due-process rights and that some of the videos were protected parody or satire. The court held that Rule 60(b) could not be used to reargue issues that could be raised on direct appeal. It also stated that the factual basis for the earlier ruling was undisputed and that the First Amendment question was a legal question decided after both sides submitted declarations and legal arguments, so an evidentiary hearing or jury trial was not required.
Fredin also moved to stay, or pause, the sanctions order while appealing it. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit had denied an earlier request for a stay and that this court had previously denied a stay request. It found that the possibility of contempt proceedings resulting from Fredin’s noncompliance did not justify reconsidering that earlier decision.
Defendants’ Request for a Show-Cause Order and Sanctions
The defendants asked the court to order Fredin to show cause—that is, explain why he should not be held in contempt—for failing to comply with the sanctions order. The court granted this request. It stated that Fredin could not decide for himself that the order was invalid and refuse to follow it while an appeal was pending. The court gave him one more opportunity to comply.
The court ordered Fredin, two weeks after the order was entered, to file a declaration stating whether he had removed the websites and videos and, if not, why he had failed to do so. The defendants were allowed two weeks after that declaration to file a response. The court stated that additional sanctions could include a daily civil-contempt fine, attorney fees and costs resulting from the contempt, and referral to the United States Attorney’s Office for possible criminal-contempt proceedings. The court deferred ruling on Middlecamp, Miller, and Schaefer’s request for attorney fees and other additional sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that:
- Fredin’s motion to vacate the sanctions order was DENIED.
- Fredin’s motion to stay the sanctions order was DENIED.
- The defendants’ motions for an order to show cause and sanctions were GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part. Fredin was ordered to file the required declaration, and the defendants could respond.
- The clerk was directed to seal the entire declaration supporting Fredin’s motion to vacate because it combined a previously sealed Exhibit B with Exhibit A. Fredin could publicly refile Exhibit A but could not publicly refile Exhibit B.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.