In re: Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin, Litigation
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-02155
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin, Judge Tunheim dismissed one action without prejudice and stayed related cases while requiring a new motion to dismiss.
Paul Hansmeier, the federal defendants, and the related actions challenging the federal statutes were affected. The lead action was dismissed without prejudice, one action had already been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and proceedings in fourteen related or future qualifying actions were stayed.
What happened
In Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin, Paul Hansmeier, representing himself, filed sixteen actions challenging the constitutionality of several federal statutes enforced by federal defendants. The court had previously combined two actions for pretrial proceedings and trial.
The court found that the lead action no longer involved a live dispute and that another action had been voluntarily dismissed. It therefore denied the pending motions in the lead action as moot, dismissed that action without prejudice, and noted that the voluntarily dismissed action was also dismissed without prejudice. The court reopened another action and denied Hansmeier’s motions to send one case back to state court and for a limited evidentiary hearing.
The court directed the federal defendants to file a motion to dismiss in the active case and barred other motions there while that motion was pending. Judge Tunheim also stayed proceedings in fourteen related or future qualifying actions until the motion to dismiss was resolved or the stay was lifted. This order did not decide whether the challenged statutes were constitutional.
The detailed version
- In re: Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin, Litigation · No. 0:20-cv-02155
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 17, 2021
Background
Paul Hansmeier, proceeding without a lawyer, filed sixteen actions challenging the constitutionality of several federal statutes. The opinion identifies David MacLaughlin and Anders Folk as the federal defendants; some actions instead list Erica MacDonald, who had been the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota until early 2021.
The court had previously consolidated two actions for pretrial proceedings and trial. The federal defendants filed a second consolidated motion to dismiss, but the lead case no longer presented a live controversy, and Hansmeier voluntarily dismissed the member case. The court also noted that thirteen actions involved the same parties and overlapping legal and factual issues.
Rulings
The court ordered the following:
- In ECF 20-2155, it denied as moot the motions listed at docket numbers 19, 30, 40, 77, 89, and 98. It dismissed the action without prejudice and directed that judgment be entered. - It recognized that ECF 20-2156 had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Hansmeier under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). - It directed the Clerk of Court to reopen ECF 21-748 because that case was no longer consolidated with another action. - In ECF 21-1167, it denied Hansmeier’s motion to remand and motion for a limited evidentiary hearing. The court stated that removal was proper because Portland Corporate Center, LLC had not been properly served, so its consent was not required, and because the action sought to stop federal officers from performing acts under their official authority. - It instructed the federal defendants to file a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum in ECF 21-1167 within fourteen days after the order’s entry. The court would not consider another motion or request in that action while the dismissal motion was pending. - It stayed proceedings in ECF 21-748 and the other listed related actions until the court resolved the motion to dismiss in ECF 21-1167 and lifted the stay. The stay also applied automatically to later actions filed in or removed to the court that involved the same type of constitutional allegations against the federal defendants.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management and threshold order rather than a decision on the constitutionality of the challenged statutes. The lead action ended through dismissal without prejudice, while related actions were paused so that a motion to dismiss in ECF 21-1167 could potentially address the broader litigation. The court stated that if the federal defendants did not file that motion, it would lift the stay.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.