Lanners et al v. State of Minnesota, No. 0:2019cv02578 - Document 33 (D. Minn. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; denying 24 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum; AND denying 31 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal(Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 7/2/2020. (HAZ)

Download PDF

Lanners et al v. State of Minnesota Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASSANDRA K. LANNERS and WESTON LANNERS, Civil No. 19-2578 (JRT/HB) Plaintiffs/Petitioners, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MANDAMUS v. STATE OF MINNESOTA; KAYSIE BERGUM; LINDSAY GUTHRIE; MELINDA DOMS; KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY; SARA CROTTEAU; FINTAN MOORE; HELEN MARTIN; JESSE WINSELL; MAI T. VANG; ASHLEY SNEIDER; HENNEPIN COUNTY CHILD PROTECTION; HENNEPIN COUNTY; KYANNA FORD; WINDY ROSS; NICOLE MILLER; GUARDIAN AD-LITEM; MINNESOTA SOCIAL WORKER BOARD; RACHELLE STRATTON; RACHELLE LOEWENSON-STRATTON; JESSICA BRADSHAW; IN THE MATTER AND WELFARE OF: CASSANDRA KIMBERLY LANNERS, MAGGIE SKELTON; LIZ SCUDDER; JODY KEEZER; RAMSEY COUNTY PROTECTION; CATHERINE MCENROE; KIM MAMMEDATY; MY SEE YANG; RHONDA MILLER; SARAH LINDAHLPFIEFFER; CHRISTA BENTSON; ELAINE SULLIVAN; and JODI WENTLAND Defendants/Respondents. Cassandra K Lanners and Weston Lanners, 2136 Ford Parkway, Suite 5015, Saint Paul, MN 55116, pro se plaintiffs. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff Cassandra K. Lanners, after seeking repeatedly to litigate a Minnesota state court juvenile proceeding in federal court, now brings Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus and a for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (April 30, 2020, Docket Nos. 23–24.) Because these Petitions are without merit and are merely additional attempts to litigate this case in federal court, the Court will deny the Petitions. The Court will also repeat its order that Lanners may not make any additional filings in this matter. Lanners initially attempted to remove Minnesota state juvenile case No. 27-JV-191016 to federal court in July 2019, and the Court remanded the action in August 2019, finding that removal was improper. (Mem. & Order at 3–4, Lanners v. Minnesota, Civil No. 19-2000, Aug. 14, 2019, Docket No. 6.) A month later, Lanners filed another notice of removal and the Court remanded the action three days later, again finding the removal improper. (Mem. & Order at 5–6, Lanners v. Minnesota, Civil No. 19-2578, Sept. 26, 2019, Docket No. 4.) The next day, Lanners filed an Amended Complaint, which the Court dismissed as moot. (Am. Compl., Sept 27, 2019, Docket No. 11.) In May 2020, Lanners removed the action yet again; the Court again remanded it and additionally gave Lanners 14 days to show cause why she should not be restricted from filing any new actions related to removing the state juvenile action. (Order to Show Cause, Lanners v. Minnesota, Civil No. 20-1206, June 3, 2020, Docket No. 8.) The Court entered an order placing Lanners on a list of restricted filers on June 18, 2020, barring her from continuing to litigate issues relating to the state juvenile case without first receiving prior permission from the Court. (Order, June 18, 2020, Docket No. 32.) 2 Shortly before Lanner’s latest attempted removal and the resulting Order to Show Cause, Lanners filed two Petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Civil No. 19-2578, April 30, 2020, Docket Nos. 23–24.) Construed generously, these filings appear to be another attempt by Lanners to litigate the state juvenile proceeding in federal court. As noted in prior orders, the Court has no jurisdiction over that matter. Lanners does not appear to be in custody and so no writ of habeas corpus may issue. Nor has Lanners stated any basis for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the Court will deny Lanner’s Petitions. Lanners may not make any further filings related to the state juvenile proceeding without prior permission of the Court. Furthermore, the Court will certify that Lanner’s appeal is not taken in good faith, and will deny the her second IFP Application. ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Lanners’s Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus [Docket No. 23] and for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 24] are DENIED. 2. Lanner’s second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 31] is DENIED. Dated: July 2, 2020 at Minneapolis, Minnesota s/John R. Tunheim________________ JOHN R. TUNHEIM Chief Judge United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.