Holkesvig v. Maring
This text of 2016 ND 109 (Holkesvig v. Maring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed 6/2/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2016 ND 109
Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Mary Muehlen Maring, in her Individual
capacity and official capacity as a
former North Dakota Supreme Court Justice
and currently sitting as a Surrogate Judge,
and the State of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees
No. 20150247
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia Feland, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Randy Holkesvig, self-represented, P.O. Box 82, Fargo, N.D. 58107-0082, plaintiff and appellant; on brief.
Douglas A. Bahr, Office of the Attorney General, 500 North Ninth Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for defendants and appellees; on brief.
Holkesvig v. Maring
[¶1] Randy Holkesvig appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against the State and former Justice Mary Muehlen Maring and from a district court order denying his motion for relief. The district court dismissed Holkesvig’s complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), concluding it did not have jurisdiction because Holkesvig did not comply with the procedural requirements established in Holkesvig v. Rost , 2015 ND 67, ¶ 4, 861 N.W.2d 488. Holkesvig moved for relief, and the district court denied his motion because Holkesvig did not file and serve notice of the motion as N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 requires and he failed to identify the rule under which he moved for relief. Holkesvig argues the district court erred in dismissing his complaint, because a petition for rehearing was still pending in Rost and a mandate had not been issued when the State moved to dismiss. He also argues the court erred in denying his motion for relief. We recently addressed these arguments in Holkesvig v. VandeWalle , 2016 ND 107. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6), and (7).
[¶2] Dale V. Sandstrom, Acting C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Ronald E. Goodman, S.J.
[¶3] The Honorable Ronald E. Goodman, S.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, C.J., disqualified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 ND 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holkesvig-v-maring-nd-2016.