Erickson v. Sawyer
0:21-cv-02536
D. MinnesotaMar 29, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Randi Lynn Erickson (Minnesota) alleges she is part of a task force called the "Pentagon Pedophile Task Force" that gathers intelligence on international crimes and that defendants conspired to threaten, kidnap, and silence her.
- Erickson alleges Defendants Craig Sawyer and Robert Hamer (Arizona) and attorney Kim Picazio (Florida) obtained harassment restraining orders in Anoka County, Minnesota by submitting materially false petitions.
- Erickson sued in federal court seeking vacatur of the state-court harassment restraining orders and an injunction barring the state court and defendants from proceeding.
- Defendants Sawyer and Hamer moved to dismiss (venue and Rule 12(b)(6)); Picazio was not yet served. Sawyer also filed a defamation counterclaim in district court.
- The district court evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and found Erickson’s federal-law citations vague and the federal criminal statutes cited do not give private causes of action; she alleged no facts showing defendants acted under color of state law.
- The court also held the federal forum cannot grant the requested relief to vacate or direct the state court to vacate its orders, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denied Erickson’s miscellaneous motions, and denied the dismissal motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question) | Erickson invoked the 1st and 14th Amendments and several federal criminal statutes to establish federal-question jurisdiction | Defendants argued dismissal on venue/Rule 12(b)(6); court also examined jurisdiction sua sponte | No federal-question jurisdiction: allegations are vague, criminal statutes cited do not create private causes of action, and no facts show state-action for § 1983-style claims |
| Whether the court can vacate or enjoin state-court harassment restraining orders | Erickson requested vacatur of state orders and an injunction to stop the state-court proceedings | Defendants opposed relief; court noted limits on federal authority over state-court judgments | Denied: federal court may not vacate state-court orders or direct a state court to do so (Exxon rule) |
| Whether Erickson’s allegations state a claim under § 1983 or other federal law | Erickson alleges conspiracy and threats interfering with her federal rights | No factual allegations that defendants acted under color of state law or that federal statutes create private remedies | Held insufficient to allege state-action or a private cause of action; claims are immaterial/insubstantial |
| Relief on miscellaneous motions (TRO, disqualification, appointment of special prosecutor) | Erickson sought TRO against state court, disqualification, appointment of special prosecutor, and federal protection | Defendants opposed; motions lacked legal basis (private citizens cannot compel criminal prosecutions) | Denied: motions seeking to restrain state court proceedings or compel prosecutions lack legal support; service request dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (federal courts may not vacate or direct state courts to vacate state-court judgments)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (colorability standard for federal-question jurisdiction; insubstantial or frivolous claims do not confer jurisdiction)
- Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 953 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2020) (explains when a complaint presents a substantial federal question)
- Northport Health Servs. of Ark., LLC v. Rutherford, 605 F.3d 483 (8th Cir. 2010) (district courts must consider subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Gibson v. Regions Fin. Corp., 557 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements and requirement to show action under color of state law for § 1983 claims)