Erickson v. Sawyer

Background

Randi Lynn Erickson, representing herself, sued Craig Randall Sawyer, Robert Hamer, and Kim Picazio. The opinion states that Erickson is a Minnesota resident, Sawyer and Hamer are Arizona residents, and Picazio is a Florida resident. Erickson alleged that the defendants threatened her because of her claimed work gathering information about international crimes and human trafficking. She alleged that the defendants obtained harassment restraining orders against her in Minnesota state court by making false statements in their petitions.

Erickson sought an order vacating the state-court harassment restraining orders and any other orders entered secretly. She also sought to stop the Minnesota state court from conducting further proceedings and requested other relief, including appointment of a special prosecutor and federal legal protection. Sawyer and Hamer moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which concerns improper venue, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Erickson had not served Picazio when the opinion was issued. Sawyer also filed a defamation counterclaim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court considered subject-matter jurisdiction first. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s legal authority to hear a dispute. The court understood Erickson’s complaint as attempting to invoke federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although the court read her self-represented complaint liberally, it found that she had not identified a substantial federal question.

Erickson cited the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process provision, the First Amendment’s protection for speech, and four federal criminal statutes. The court found that the constitutional references did not identify a specific federal claim. It also held that the cited criminal statutes do not create private rights of action, meaning they do not authorize a private person to sue for alleged violations. The court further explained that, even if Erickson intended to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she had not alleged facts showing that any defendant acted under color of state law, which generally means using authority derived from a state or local government.

The court identified an additional jurisdictional problem with Erickson’s requested relief. A federal district court cannot vacate an order entered by a state court or direct the state court to do so. It also cannot enjoin or limit the state court’s power to conduct its proceedings in the manner Erickson requested.

Rulings on the Motions

The court dismissed Erickson’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the order did not state that refiling the complaint was permanently barred, although any later filing would still need to satisfy jurisdictional and other legal requirements.

The court denied Sawyer’s motion to dismiss as moot and denied Hamer’s motion to dismiss as moot. A ruling that a motion is moot means the court did not decide the motion’s underlying arguments because another ruling made it unnecessary to do so.

The court denied Erickson’s motion for miscellaneous relief, her motion to disqualify the Anoka County district court, and her application for an emergency or temporary restraining order. The court also stated that her renewed request to serve Picazio electronically was denied as moot. Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the opinion and order.