Anderson v. Jackson, County of et al

Filing 107

ORDER Adopting 104 Report and Recommendation; granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 32 Motion for Protective Order; granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 80 Applicati on on Proceed In Forma Pauperis in District Court; denying as moot 82 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 92 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings; denying 96 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 103 Motion for Sanctions. All claims in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 06/05/2012. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Craig L. Anderson,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 11-2660 ADM/AJB

County of Jackson, Margaret Salzwedal,
Terry Whitman, Bruce Anderson,
Darlene Anderson, Robert O’Connor,
John Morrison, Cynthia Burrell, and
John Doe,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Craig L. Anderson, pro se.
Joseph M. Bromeland, Esq., Wendland Sellers Bromeland, P.A., Blue Earth, MN, on behalf of
Defendants County of Jackson, Terry Whitman, and Robert O’Connor.
Frank J. Rajkowski, Esq., Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., St. Cloud, MN, on behalf of Defendants
Bruce Anderson and Darlene Anderson.
Gregory E. Karpenko, Esq., and Joseph J. Cassioppi, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, PA,
Minneapolis, MN, and Joseph M. Colaiano, Esq., Mayo Clinic Legal Department, Rochester,
MN, on behalf of Defendant John Morrison.
Cynthia Burrell, pro se.
______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of
Plaintiff Craig L. Anderson’s (“Craig Anderson”) Objections [Docket No. 105] to Chief
Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan’s April 4, 2012 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
[Docket No. 104]. Judge Boylan’s R&R recommends granting Defendant John Morrison’s
(“Morrison”) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 15]; denying as moot Morrison’s Motion to Stay
Discovery [Docket No. 32]; granting Defendants Bruce Anderson and Darlene Anderson’s

Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 38]; granting Defendants County of Jackson
(“Jackson County”), Terry Whitman (“Whitman”), and Robert O’Connor’s (“O’Connor”) Joint
Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 47]; denying as moot Defendant Cynthia Burrell’s
(“Burrell”) Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 80] and Motion to Appoint
Counsel [Docket No. 82]; denying Craig Anderson’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Substitute
Parties [Docket No. 92]; denying Craig Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against
Defendant Cynthia Burrell [Docket No. 96]; denying Craig Anderson’s Motion for Sanctions
[Docket No. 103]; and dismissing all claims against all Defendants. Based on a de novo review
of the record, Craig Anderson’s Objections to the R&R are overruled.
Judge Boylan’s recitation of the factual background in this case is thorough and will not
be repeated here, but rather is incorporated by reference. In his Objections, Craig Anderson
disagrees with the facts relied on by Judge Boylan, argues that summary judgment was
premature because he has not had the opportunity for discovery, and generally argues that the
evidence in this case and in his prior cases is the result of a widespread conspiracy against him.
Craig Anderson’s arguments, however, are unavailing.
First, the factual disputes identified by Craig Anderson are either not material or not
genuine. For example, his argument that he never brought claims against Morrison is not
genuine because it is simply wrong. The Order dated June 1, 2010, from the Fifth Judicial
District Court of Minnesota in Jackson County, case file 32-CV-09-133, clearly recites Craig
Anderson brought claims as an individual, as well as successor trustee and attorney-in-fact for
his parents, against Morrison.
The other factual issues identified by Craig Anderson are rendered immaterial by the

2

doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Craig Anderson has previously brought
claims against Morrision, Bruce Anderson, Cynthia Burrell, Terry Whitman, and Robert
O’Connor based on the events surrounding the re-capacitation of his parents. Craig Anderson
has also previously challenged the veracity of the information used by Defendant Margaret
Salzwedal (“Salzwedal”) in securing a search warrant for his house.
Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, “a party is precluded from raising subsequent
claims in a second action when: (1) the earlier claim involved the same set of factual
circumstances, (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privities, (3) there was a
final judgment on the merits, and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the matter.” Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007).
Claim preclusion applies even when a judgment may have been wrong. Federated Dept. Stores,
Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981).
Here, Craig Anderson previously brought claims against Morrison, Bruce Anderson,
Cynthia Burrell, Terry Whitman, and Robert O’Connor based on the same factual predicate as
his current claims–the legal re-capacitation of his parents. Furthermore, Darlene Anderson, as
wife and alleged co-conspirator of Bruce Anderson, is Bruce Anderson’s privity. See RSM
Production Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 800 F. Supp. 2d 182, 193–94
(D.D.C. 2011) (“Members of a conspiracy are deemed under the law to be in privity with each
other.”) (citing Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9, 17–18 (1st Cir. 2010) and
Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837, 841–42 (3d Cir. 1972)). In Craig Anderson’s prior cases,
final judgment on the merits was reached. Furthermore, Craig Anderson had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate those claims.

3

Craig Anderson now avers the evidence against him was fraudulent. However,
Minnesota courts refuse to apply claim preclusion only when there is an extrinsic fraud on the
court. Ellis v. Hanson, No. A11-101, 2011 WL 5829104, at *2–3 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 14,
2011) (declining to apply claim preclusion because failure to disclose did not rise to level of
extrinsic fraud requiring vacation of judgment). Craig Anderson had the opportunity to expose
the fraud he alleges in the prior proceeding. No collusion between the judge and parties has been
alleged, and claim preclusion bars the claims against Morrison, Darlene Anderson, Bruce
Anderson, Cynthia Burrell, Terry Whitman, and Robert O’Connor.
Likewise, issue preclusion bars Craig Anderson’s claims against Salzwedal and John
Doe. The gravamen of Craig Anderson’s claims against Salzwedal and John Doe are that they
conspired to “trump up” criminal allegations against him and obtain a warrant for his arrest.
During his criminal prosecution, he attacked Salzwedal’s procurement of the warrant, arguing
Salzwedal made intentional or reckless omissions from the warrant application and that she made
specific and direct false statements. After an omnibus hearing, the state court held that
“Salzwedal was operating under her best information and belief and first hand knowledge, her
statements in the warrant application were not intentional or reckless but were true to the best of
her knowledge.” Dec. 16 Aff. of Frank J. Rajkowski [Docket No. 87], App’x A to Ex. B at 4.
Issue preclusion makes a determination of a court of competent jurisdiction conclusive of
an issue in subsequent suits where: “(1) the issue was identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2)
there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a
party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to
be heard on the adjudicated issue.” Kaiser v. N. States Power Co., 353 N.W.2d 899, 902 (Minn.

4

1984) (quotations omitted). Here, Craig Anderson already litigated the issue of Salzwedal’s
good faith in obtaining the warrant against him, and a final judgment was reached. Under
Minnesota’s rules of criminal procedure, the omnibus hearing provided a full and fair
opportunity for Anderson to make his arguments, and they were rejected. They cannot now be
re-litigated.
Because claim preclusion and issue preclusion could be decided with reference to public
documents, summary judgment prior to the close of discovery was proper. Furthermore, to the
extent Judge Boylan’s R&R did not rely on preclusion doctrines, the R&R relied on the
allegations of the Complaint itself. For example, the Complaint on its face does not allege
sufficient factual content to plausibly suggest that Bruce Anderson and Darlene Anderson acted
under color of state law, or that a RICO enterprise existed, or that a pattern of racketeering
existed, or that Jackson County had a policy of custom of unconstitutional conduct. Therefore,
Craig Anderson’s Objections are overruled, and the R&R is adopted.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Craig Anderson’s Objections [Docket No. 105] are OVERRULED;
2. Judge Boylan’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 104] is ADOPTED;
3. Morrison’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 15] is GRANTED;
4. Morrison’s Motion to Stay Discovery [Docket No. 32] is DENIED as moot;
5. Bruce Anderson and Darlene Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.
38] is GRANTED;
6. Jackson County, Terry Whitman, and O’Connor’s Joint Motion for Summary

5

Judgment [Docket No. 47] is GRANTED;
7. Burrell’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 80] is DENIED as
moot;
8. Burrell’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 82] is DENIED as moot;
9. Craig Anderson’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Substitute Parties [Docket No. 92]
is DENIED;
10. Craig Anderson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 96] is DENIED;
11. Craig Anderson’s Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 103] is DENIED; and
12. All claims in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 5, 2012.

6