Holkesvig v. Edison

Filed 6/2/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2016 ND 108 Randy Holkesvig, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Brent Edison, in his individual and official capacity as Disciplinary Counsel for the Disciplinary Board of the North Dakota Supreme Court and the State Judicial Conduct Commission, Kara Johnson, in her individual and official capacity as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for the Disciplinary Board of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota, Defendants and Appellees No. 20150266 Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, 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. Edison No. 20150266 Per Curiam. [¶1] Randy Holkesvig appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against the State and disciplinary counsel Brent Edison and Kara Johnson. He also appeals from a district court order denying his motion for relief from the judgment and orders denying motions filed after appealing the dismissal of his complaint. The district court dismissed Holkesvig’s complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b), concluding it lacked subject matter 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 from the judgment and the district court denied his motion because Holkesvig failed to comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Holkesvig filed additional motions after appealing the dismissal of his complaint. The district court denied the motions, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because Holkesvig filed the motions after he appealed the earlier order dismissing his complaint. Holkesvig argues the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because a petition for rehearing was 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 from the judgment and motions filed after appealing the dismissal of his complaint. We have 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. Lisa Fair McEvers Daniel J. Crothers Carol Ronning Kapsner Ronald E. Goodman, S.J. [¶3] The Honorable Ronald E. Goodman, S.J., sitting in place of VandeWalle, C.J., disqualified.