Everett v. State, 2017 ND 93

Tilmer Everett was convicted in 2007 of gross sexual imposition; this Court summarily affirmed the conviction. State v. Everett, 2008 ND 126, 756 N.W.2d 344.
Everett filed numerous post-conviction motions and applications over years; many were denied and those denials upheld on appeal.
In August 2015 the district court entered an injunction barring Everett from filing further motions or pleadings related to his criminal case without prior court approval, finding his filings repetitive and meritless.
Everett moved (Feb. 17, 2016) for leave to file newly discovered evidence and a new post-conviction application claiming newly discovered evidence; the district court denied leave in March 2016 and dismissed the matter.
Everett appealed the denial; he contended the court improperly denied an evidentiary hearing, violated due process, and that the State withheld or permitted false testimony and failed to disclose documents at trial.
The Supreme Court considered whether the district court's order denying leave to file was appealable and concluded it was not, dismissing the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability of order denying leave to file	Everett argued denial of leave was reviewable and he should get appellate review of due process and evidentiary claims	State argued the order was not an appealable final judgment and was within court's discretion under prior injunction	Denied — order not appealable; dismissal affirmed for lack of statutory basis to appeal
Right to evidentiary hearing / due process	Everett claimed the court should have held a hearing on newly discovered evidence and post-conviction claims	State & court treated the filings as repetitive and meritless under the injunction; hearing unnecessary	Denied — court may refuse repetitive filings; no appeal from denial here
Newly discovered evidence / claims of nondisclosure or false testimony	Everett alleged newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial non-disclosure/false testimony at trial	Court found allegations repetitive, previously raised, and meritless	Denied — court dismissed motion as repetitive; appeals court did not reach merits because order not appealable
Validity / scope of injunction limiting filings	Everett implicitly challenged the effect of the prior injunction on his access to file new pleadings	State relied on injunction that requires district-court approval to file further post-conviction pleadings	Upheld in effect — the denial was an exercise of court discretion under the prior injunction; not an appealable order here

State v. Everett, 2008 ND 126, 756 N.W.2d 344 (N.D. 2008) (affirming Everett's criminal judgment)
Everett v. State, 2016 ND 78, 877 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 2016) (affirming district court injunction limiting Everett's filings)
Vogel v. Marathon Oil Co., 2016 ND 104, 879 N.W.2d 471 (N.D. 2016) (dismissal without prejudice generally not appealable)
Riemers v. Hill, 2014 ND 80, 845 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 2014) (same)
Bell v. Pro Tune Plus, 2013 ND 147, 835 N.W.2d 858 (N.D. 2013) (order dismissing without prejudice does not determine action)
Riak v. State, 2015 ND 120, 863 N.W.2d 894 (N.D. 2015) (dismissal without prejudice may be final when plaintiff cannot cure defect)
Holkesvig v. Grove, 2014 ND 57, 844 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 2014) (denial of leave to file further lawsuits/pleadings reviewed for abuse of discretion)