This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Stephen A. Hodgson,
Mary Jane Cole, et al.,
Filed April 16, 2002
Washington County District Court
File No. C2012858
Stephen A. Hodgson, #103789, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Picket Street North, Bayport, MN 55003-1490 (pro se appellant)
Richard W. Huffman, Huffman, Usem, Saboe, Crawford & Greenberg, P.A., 1000 Water Park Place, 5101 Olson Memorial Highway, Minneapolis, MN 55422 (for respondents Cole, et al.)
Richard K. Hocking, 7570 West 147th Street, Apple Valley, MN 55124 (for respondent Krzyzaniak)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Pro se appellant Stephen A. Hodgson challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against respondents Mary Jane Cole, Richard W. Huffman, and Neal Krzyzaniak. Cole is Hodgson’s sister and the trustee of a Florida trust created by their deceased parents; Huffman is the trust’s real estate attorney in Minnesota; Krzyzaniak, who has not submitted a brief or otherwise responded in this appeal, is the president of a development company that purchased trust land located in Minnesota.
Because the district court did not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over a Florida trust and because the court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in denying Hodgson’s requests for injunctive relief and to join additional parties, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Hodgson is a contingent beneficiary under the terms of a trust established by his parents, who directed that if he was incarcerated at the time of their deaths, his share was to be held in trust “until such time as [he] is no longer under the * * * supervision of * * * prison authorities.” Hodgson is currently serving two consecutive life sentences for first-degree murder. See State v. Hodgson, 512 N.W.2d 95 (Minn. 1994) (affirming convictions on direct appeal).
In June 2000, Hodgson sued Cole in her individual capacity in Scott County, alleging that she “unlawfully retained, and is spending, by and through fraudulent conveyance and possible coercion with others, from [his] inheritance proceeds.” The district court dismissed Hodgson’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Florida trust. The district court further suggested that if Hodgson is entitled to any relief, he must bring his petition in the Florida courts. On appeal, this court affirmed that dismissal. Hodgson v. Cole, C8-01-584 (Minn. App. Sept. 28, 2001) (order opinion).
In this complaint, which was filed in Washington County, Hodgson again sues Cole, as well as Huffman and Krzyaniak, and alleges that they have “through fraud, theft, and conversion,” unlawfully seized and disposed of his inheritance. He also alleges that, while “confiscating” his inheritance, they have defamed and slandered him and that their actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Similar to the claims raised in the Scott County case, these claims fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida courts, which are administering the trust. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hodgson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(a) (allows dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Hodgson raises various other issues, including challenges to the district court’s denial of his request to join three Department of Corrections employees and for injunctive relief against the department, to prohibit its enforcement of a “Direct Order” that allegedly denied him access to the courts. Noting that the “Direct Order” had already been rescinded and that an injunction against disciplinary action by the department would interfere with department authority and not be in the public interest, the district court denied both motions. We agree and find no error in the district court’s decisions.
Finally, Cole and Huffman request that this court enter an order barring Hodgson
from commencing in Minnesota any further litigation involving claims against or relating to the Trust, Ms. Cole as trustee, or third parties that may do business with the Trust.
Under certain circumstances, a party may seek relief against a pro se litigant in the form of sanctions under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 9.01 (authorizing district court to enter order requiring security or imposing preconditions on frivolous litigant’s ability to file new claims). Even if sanctions were warranted here, Cole and Huffman failed to seek this type of relief in district court and they are precluded from now requesting it on appeal. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988).
The judgment dismissing the complaint is affirmed.