State v. Holkesvig, 862 N.W.2d 531

In 2008 Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking (class A misdemeanor); a related disorderly conduct restraining-order charge was dismissed; he received and completed a two-year deferred imposition of sentence.
Holkesvig previously sought postconviction relief in 2011; the district court denied relief and this Court summarily affirmed in 2013.
Since his plea, Holkesvig has pursued extensive, repetitive civil litigation accusing prosecutors and others of misconduct; many complaints were found frivolous by the courts.
In February 2014 Holkesvig filed seven motions in his two criminal files asserting fraud upon the court, new evidence, and requests to amend pleadings.
The district court held an April 2014 hearing and, in May 2014, denied Holkesvig’s motions and entered an order barring him from filing further motions or pleadings in those district-court criminal cases and relieving the State of any obligation to respond to future filings.
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed denial of the postconviction motions, found the appeal frivolous, and modified the filing bar to conform with chapter 29-32.1, N.D.C.C., allowing future district-court filings only with prior judicial approval under the postconviction statute.

Issue	Holkesvig (Plaintiff)	State (Defendant)	Held
Availability of postconviction relief for dismissed disorderly-conduct charge	Argued court ignored evidence of fraud and withheld exculpatory evidence; sought relief in both criminal files	Argued postconviction relief unavailable for dismissed charge and motions are meritless	Relief unavailable for the dismissed charge; motions denied as meritless
Whether motions presented new evidence/freed him from earlier rulings	Claimed new evidence of corruption, collusion, deception, and fraud upon the court	Argued motions raised no new issues or evidence and were repetitive	Court found no new issues/evidence; motions denied on merits/res judicata
Application of res judicata / misuse of process to repetitive filings	Contended court abused discretion and violated oath by ignoring evidence	Argued res judicata and misuse of process barred successive collateral attacks	Court applied res judicata/misuse of process and denied relief; affirmed
Authority to enjoin further filings in district court	Opposed blanket bar; asserted right to file postconviction relief and appeals	Argued court may limit abusive filings and relieve State of responding	Court may limit filings; injunction modified to require prior judicial approval under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 and was affirmed as modified

Holkesvig v. Grove, 844 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 2014) (prior decision addressing Holkesvig’s pattern of frivolous litigation)
Holkesvig v. Moore, 828 N.W.2d 546 (N.D. 2013) (prior summary disposition of Holkesvig’s postconviction challenge)
State v. Casteel, 634 N.W.2d 338 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (example of narrowly tailored filing restrictions for repetitive litigants)