Kraft v. State
2016 ND 250
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Keith Kraft filed a post-conviction relief application in 2015 seeking to vacate a 1983 drug-delivery conviction.
- The State moved to summarily dismiss the application as time-barred under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01 (statute of limitations).
- Kraft did not respond to the State’s motion; 28 days after the motion was filed the district court dismissed the application.
- Kraft moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied.
- Kraft appealed, arguing the court should have given him 30 days to respond under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 rather than 14 days under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s motion required the court to go beyond pleadings (triggering Rule 56 and a 30‑day response) | Kraft: Motion cited "summary dismissal" and statute, so it went beyond pleadings and required 30 days to respond | State: Motion relied only on the pleadings (untimeliness); citing law does not make it go outside pleadings, so 14‑day rule applies | Court: Motion stayed within pleadings; treated under Rule 12(b)(6); 14‑day response period applied |
| Whether use of term "summary dismissal" converts a 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion | Kraft: The phrase indicates summary judgment procedures and 30‑day response | State: Labeling does not control procedural treatment; substance controls | Court: Labels do not control; substance governs; phrase irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- (No listed authorities with official reporter citations in the opinion text provided.)