Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-02156
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin, Judge Tunheim dismissed one action, denied several motions, and stayed related cases without deciding the constitutional claims.
Paul Hansmeier, the federal defendants, and the related actions involving the challenged statutes were affected. Case 20-2155 was dismissed without prejudice, case 21-1167 was designated as the action in which the federal defendants were to file a motion to dismiss, and the listed related and future actions were stayed under the stated conditions.
What happened
Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin involved sixteen actions brought by Paul Hansmeier, who was representing himself, challenging the constitutionality of several federal statutes enforced by federal defendants. The court had previously consolidated two actions for pretrial proceedings and trial.
The court denied as moot all pending motions in case 20-2155 and dismissed that action without prejudice. Case 20-2156 had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the court ordered case 21-748 reopened. In case 21-1167, the court denied motions to remand and for a limited evidentiary hearing, directed the federal defendants to file a motion to dismiss, and stayed proceedings in the listed related actions and future actions involving the same statutes and parties until that motion is resolved or the stay is lifted.
Judge John R. Tunheim issued the order. The court did not decide whether the challenged statutes were constitutional; it managed the related cases and resolved threshold and procedural matters.
The detailed version
- Hansmeier v. MacLaughlin · No. 0:20-cv-02156
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 18, 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. The lead action, case 20-2155, no longer presented a live controversy, and Hansmeier voluntarily dismissed the member action, case 20-2156.
Rulings
The court denied as moot the motions listed in case 20-2155, including the second consolidated motion to dismiss and earlier motions to dismiss. It dismissed case 20-2155 without prejudice and entered judgment accordingly.
The court recognized that case 20-2156 had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Hansmeier under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). It ordered the Clerk of Court to reopen case 21-748 because that action was no longer consolidated with another action.
In case 21-1167, the court denied Hansmeier's motion to remand and motion for a limited evidentiary hearing. It stated that removal was proper because Portland Corporate Center, LLC had not been properly served and therefore did not need to consent to removal. It also stated that removal was proper under the federal-officer removal statute because Hansmeier sought to enjoin federal officers from performing acts under color of office. The court denied the request for a limited evidentiary hearing because no additional evidence was needed to decide whether removal was proper.
The court instructed the federal defendants to file a motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum in case 21-1167 within fourteen days after entry of the order. While that motion was pending, the court stated that it would not consider another motion or request in that action.
Stay and effect
Until the court resolved the motion to dismiss in case 21-1167 and lifted the order, it stayed proceedings in cases 21-748, 21-1426, 21-1537, 21-1538, 21-1539, 21-1540, 21-1542, 21-1543, 21-1547, 21-1550, 21-1551, 21-1552, and 21-1553. The stay also applied automatically to later actions filed in or removed to the court that involved allegations by Hansmeier that the challenged statutes, as enforced by the federal defendants, were unconstitutional. The order required counsel for the federal defendants or Hansmeier, as applicable, to alert the Clerk of Court about any such action.
The order did not decide the constitutional challenges. It stated that deciding the anticipated motion to dismiss in case 21-1167 could potentially resolve all of the actions, but the order itself did not rule on that motion because it had not yet been filed.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.