Holkesvig v. Grove, 2014 ND 57

Background

Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking in 2008 and thereafter pursued extensive, largely unsuccessful, civil litigation related to that conviction and its investigation.
In 2011 Holkesvig sued Sgt. Gary Grove alleging misconduct and negligent supervision; the district court granted summary judgment for Grove, finding Holkesvig's claims frivolous, and awarded costs and fees.
The district court repeatedly denied Holkesvig post-judgment motions, ordered him not to file further pleadings in the case without leave, and those rulings were affirmed on prior appeals.
Despite prior rulings and appeals, Holkesvig continued filing voluminous, repetitive post-judgment motions in 2013; the district court denied leave to file further post-judgment motions, denied his motion to vacate/void the judgment, and barred the clerk from accepting further filings from him in the case (except a notice of appeal).
The district court concluded Holkesvig’s filings were repetitive, frivolous, and burdensome to the court system; Holkesvig appealed the 2013 orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court lost jurisdiction to act after Holkesvig filed notices of appeal	Holkesvig: prior notices of appeal divested the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over subsequent orders, so later orders are void	Grove: court retained jurisdiction over collateral matters and to control its docket to prevent abuse	Court: district court retained inherent authority to control its docket and act on collateral matters; orders were within that authority and not void
Whether the court abused discretion in denying leave to file post-judgment motions	Holkesvig: denials were unlawful, deprived him of due process and access to courts	Grove: motions were repetitive/frivolous and precluded by prior rulings; denial appropriate to prevent abuse	Court: no abuse of discretion; motions raised no new grounds and were properly denied
Whether relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) was warranted to vacate or void the judgment	Holkesvig: claimed fraud, deceit, misapplication of trust account, and other grounds for relief	Grove: 60(b) claims are meritless, barred by res judicata, and repetitive	Court: Holkesvig failed to meet the heavy burden for Rule 60(b) relief; no exceptional circumstances shown
Whether res judicata / collateral estoppel barred Holkesvig’s repeated claims	Holkesvig: attempted to relitigate or present new evidence to overcome prior judgments	Grove: prior final judgment and related rulings preclude relitigation; many issues already decided	Court: claims were barred or frivolous; res judicata/collateral estoppel apply and support denial of further filings

Key Cases Cited

Holkesvig v. Grove, 823 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment for defendant and prior affirmance of limits on filings)
Holkesvig v. Welte, 818 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 2012) (affirming orders restricting Holkesvig’s ability to file lawsuits related to his conviction)
Ungar v. N.D. State Univ., 721 N.W.2d 16 (N.D. 2006) (principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel)
Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Ziebarth, 520 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 1994) (court’s inherent authority to control docket and curb abusive litigation)
Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 793 N.W.2d 371 (N.D. 2011) (district court retains jurisdiction over certain collateral matters after notice of appeal)
Follman v. Upper Valley Special Educ. Unit, 609 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 2000) (Rule 60(b) relief available only in exceptional circumstances)
Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Lario Oil & Gas Co., 801 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) review)