Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy

D. South Dakota

Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy

DecidedDecember 29, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-04217

StatusUnknown

This text of Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy (Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy, (D.S.D. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

COURTNEY RICHMOND, 4:25-CV-04217-CCT

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S vs. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NOLAN WIESE, KRAFT FOODS GROUP, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INC., US FOODS, INC., JUDGE AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ROBERTO A. LANGE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; JUDGE POWER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; WOODS AND FULLER, P.C., MINNEHAHA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, CODY JANSEN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; TROOPER JORDAN ANDERSON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; KEVIN KROHN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DANIEL HAGER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MATT THELEN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MARK HODGES, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; FBI AGENTS, JOHN DOES 1-2; JOHN DOES 3-50; MAGISTRATE VERONICA L. DUFFY,

Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff, Courtney Richmond, instituted this civil suit against the above-named defendants, asserting multiple claims related to alleged theft of his barbeque sauce recipe and the obstruction of his efforts to seek justice for the same. See generally Docket 1. Although the allegations in his complaint are many, the motion at issue concerns Mr. Richmond’s allegation that a federal criminal case, United States v. Richmond, 4:24-CR-40139, was filed against him in retaliation for him filing the current civil lawsuit. See Dockets 1 and 29. He now moves for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction, enjoining all proceedings in that criminal case, prohibiting the assigned judge and prosecutor and the Clerk of Court from taking further action against him in that criminal matter, and barring Defendants from initiating new criminal charges against him “related to this matter.” Docket 29 at 5. He also requests an order to show cause why the criminal case at 4:24- CR-40139 should not be dismissed with prejudice.1 Id. While Mr. Richmond cites case law in his current motion, none of the cases stand for the proposition that this Court has the authority to interfere

with or restrain an ongoing federal criminal prosecution. Moreover, even if this Court had the authority to grant the relief Mr. Richmond requests, he has not met his “burden of establishing the propriety of an injunction[.]” See Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson, 992 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003)). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

1 Mr. Richmond filed a similar emergency motion—to dismiss the indictment—in United States v. Richmond, 4:24-CR-40139, Docket 140, alleging the case “is a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by federal officials to retaliate against [him] for exercising his constitutional right to file a civil lawsuit.” Mr. Richmond does not identify or address any of these factors. See Docket 29. The Court acknowledges its duty to liberally construe Mr. Richmond’s pro se filings, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but there must be

arguments to liberally construe. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and order to show case, Docket 29, is denied. Dated December 29, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Camela C. Theeler CAMELA C. THEELER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

COURTNEY RICHMOND, 4:25-CV-04217-CCT

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S vs. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NOLAN WIESE, KRAFT FOODS GROUP, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INC., US FOODS, INC., JUDGE AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ROBERTO A. LANGE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; JUDGE POWER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; WOODS AND FULLER, P.C., MINNEHAHA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, CODY JANSEN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; TROOPER JORDAN ANDERSON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; KEVIN KROHN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DANIEL HAGER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MATT THELEN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; MARK HODGES, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; FBI AGENTS, JOHN DOES 1-2; JOHN DOES 3-50; MAGISTRATE VERONICA L. DUFFY,

Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff, Courtney Richmond, instituted this civil suit against the above-named defendants, asserting multiple claims related to alleged theft of his barbeque sauce recipe and the obstruction of his efforts to seek justice for the same. See generally Docket 1. Although the allegations in his complaint are many, the motion at issue concerns Mr. Richmond’s allegation that a federal criminal case, United States v. Richmond, 4:24-CR-40139, was filed against him in retaliation for him filing the current civil lawsuit. See Dockets 1 and 29. He now moves for an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction, enjoining all proceedings in that criminal case, prohibiting the assigned judge and prosecutor and the Clerk of Court from taking further action against him in that criminal matter, and barring Defendants from initiating new criminal charges against him “related to this matter.” Docket 29 at 5. He also requests an order to show cause why the criminal case at 4:24- CR-40139 should not be dismissed with prejudice.1 Id. While Mr. Richmond cites case law in his current motion, none of the cases stand for the proposition that this Court has the authority to interfere

with or restrain an ongoing federal criminal prosecution. Moreover, even if this Court had the authority to grant the relief Mr. Richmond requests, he has not met his “burden of establishing the propriety of an injunction[.]” See Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Thompson, 992 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003)). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

1 Mr. Richmond filed a similar emergency motion—to dismiss the indictment—in United States v. Richmond, 4:24-CR-40139, Docket 140, alleging the case “is a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by federal officials to retaliate against [him] for exercising his constitutional right to file a civil lawsuit.” Mr. Richmond does not identify or address any of these factors. See Docket 29. The Court acknowledges its duty to liberally construe Mr. Richmond’s pro se filings, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), but there must be

arguments to liberally construe. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and order to show case, Docket 29, is denied. Dated December 29, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Camela C. Theeler CAMELA C. THEELER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Courtney Richmond v. Nolan Wiese, Kraft Foods Group, Inc., US Foods, Inc., Judge Roberto A. Lange, in his individual capacity; Judge Power, in his individual capacity; Woods and Fuller, P.C., Minnehaha County Clerk of Courts, Cody Jansen, in his individual capacity; Trooper Jordan Anderson, in his individual capacity; Kevin Krohn, in his individual capacity; Daniel Hager, in his individual capacity; Matt Thelen, in his individual capacity; Mark Hodges, in his individual capacity; FBI Agents, John Does 1-2; John Does 3-50; Magistrate Veronica L. Duffy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtney-richmond-v-nolan-wiese-kraft-foods-group-inc-us-foods-inc-sdd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack