United States v. Young

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Young

907 F.2d 867, 1990 WL 96959

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1990

DocketNos. 90-5001, 90-5110

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 907 F.2d 867 (United States v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Young, 907 F.2d 867, 1990 WL 96959 (8th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Larry J. Young is a North Dakota resident who lost his farm through mortgage foreclosure seven years ago. In these consolidated pro se appeals marking his third appearance in this court on foreclosure-related litigation, Young appeals the district court’s ¹ grant of summary judgment for the United States and for third-party defendants in this trespass action brought against him. We affirm.

The district court judge properly refused to recuse himself because Young’s affidavit was untimely and legally insufficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. Faul, 748 F.2d 1204, 1210 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 632 (1985).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the United States and for the third-party defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); United States v. Zenon, 711 F.2d 476, 478 (1st Cir.1983) (court may enjoin trespass); Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir.1987) (equitable basis for injunctive relief in federal court is irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies). Young’s argument that the injunction was granted without due process is meritless. The district court did not- abuse its discretion in awarding $450 in attorney’s fees to the United States pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. See EEOC v. Milavetz & Assocs., 863 F.2d 613, 614 (8th Cir.1988).

We find this appeal to be frivolous, and we grant United Bank’s motion for an award of costs and attorney’s fees. See Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (award against pro se litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Fed.R.App.P. 38). Attorney’s fees are awarded in the amount of $500.00.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Larry J. Young is a North Dakota resident who lost his farm through mortgage foreclosure seven years ago. In these consolidated pro se appeals marking his third appearance in this court on foreclosure-related litigation, Young appeals the district court’s ¹ grant of summary judgment for the United States and for third-party defendants in this trespass action brought against him. We affirm.

The district court judge properly refused to recuse himself because Young’s affidavit was untimely and legally insufficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. Faul, 748 F.2d 1204, 1210 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 632 (1985).

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the United States and for the third-party defendants. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); United States v. Zenon, 711 F.2d 476, 478 (1st Cir.1983) (court may enjoin trespass); Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418 (8th Cir.1987) (equitable basis for injunctive relief in federal court is irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies). Young’s argument that the injunction was granted without due process is meritless. The district court did not- abuse its discretion in awarding $450 in attorney’s fees to the United States pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. See EEOC v. Milavetz & Assocs., 863 F.2d 613, 614 (8th Cir.1988).

We find this appeal to be frivolous, and we grant United Bank’s motion for an award of costs and attorney’s fees. See Boomer v. United States, 755 F.2d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (award against pro se litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Fed.R.App.P. 38). Attorney’s fees are awarded in the amount of $500.00.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 F.2d 867, 1990 WL 96959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-young-ca8-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack