Rued v. Hudson, 0:24-cv-03409

Plaintiffs are attempting to overturn a Minnesota state court’s award of sole custody over a minor (W.O.R.) to another party.
This lawsuit is one of several related actions filed by the same plaintiffs, all challenging custody and related state court proceedings.
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and have repeatedly filed similar or related federal lawsuits after losing in state court.
Defendants moved for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, and some sought sanctions against the plaintiffs for abusive litigation.
The federal district court determined it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal review of state court judgments.
The court considered and granted defendants’ request for filing restrictions but declined (for now) to impose monetary sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal jurisdiction over custody dispute	Federal court should review state custody case	Rooker-Feldman bars federal review of state court actions	No jurisdiction; case dismissed
Entitlement to file further related suits	Rueds have right to file additional suits	Plaintiffs are abusing the court with repetitive suits	Restricted filing privilege imposed
Imposition of sanctions	Sanctions inappropriate	Request both monetary and filing restrictions	Only filing restrictions granted
Merit of underlying custody claims	State court custody decision was wrongful	Federal courts cannot review state court decisions	Claims dismissed with prejudice

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (federal courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for abusive litigation)
Landscape Props., Inc. v. Whisenhunt, 127 F.3d 678 (repetitive and frivolous filings may be sanctioned)