LUSSY v YOUNG
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TN THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA RICHARD C . LUSSY, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , vs . JAN 24 1985 J. MICHAEL YOUNG, Defendant and Respondent. O P I N I O N , ORDER AND JUDGMENT R i c h a r d C. Lussy a.ppea1.s from a n o r d e r c f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Deer Lodge County, Henry Loble presiding, from an order t h e Hon. dismissing Lussy ' s c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t J. Michael Young. The only issue D i s t r i c t Court's on appeal is the propriety of the d i s m i s s a l o f L u s s y ' s compl-aj-nt a g a . i n s t J . Michael Young. In cause Richard C. no. DV-84-72 in the same District Lussy sued John Conway H a r r i s o n , John C . F r e d J . Weber and L . C. Sheehy, Gulhrandson a s i n d i v i d u a l s , w i t h o u t reference t o t h e i r judicial positions, i n D e e r Lodge County. Court, J. i n a complaint f i l e d Michael Young, a s t a t e employee, a p p e a r e d a s a t t o r n e y f o r t h e named i n d i v j - d u a l d e f e n d a n t s i n t h a t a c t i o n and b r o u g h t a b o u t an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o dismiss t h e action against the said individuals. Lussy t h e n sued J . Michael Young i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , D e e r Lodge County i n c a u s e no. DT7-84-93, Young had represented the on t h e grounds t h a t individuals i n the action, that this was improper and that he was guilty of conspiracy, improper official actions, and abuse of the principle of "justinhoard." In the District Court, Judge Loble dismissed the . complaint. against Young, saying i n his order of August 22, "The gist of plaintiff's rambling, uncomprehensible complaint seems to be that the defendant represented private, non-governmental clients in his capacity as an empl-oyee of state government. However, plaintiff attached to his complaint a motion to dismiss and memorandum in support of motion to dismiss in Cause No. DV 84 72 in the di@eedns District Court of Deer Lodge County,& ? ! a f n a t of that action were four Montana State Supreme Court Justices. The defendant in this case acted as lawyer for the defendant justices in the earlier action. Mr. Young clearly defended the action against the justices on the basis that they were being sued for an act in discharge of a duty associated with judicial actions of the Court. An allegation that Young represented the justices as private individuals when the attached exhibits showed he represented them in their judicial capacities sets forth no cause of action." Although four justices on this Court are indirectly involved in this action in that the attorney, J. Michael Young, had represented them, and is now being sued for that representation, we see no confl-ict of interest in recognizing in Lussy's present compIa.i.nt and appeal weightless, needless, senseless action. a fruitless, The a.ppea1, as was the action in the District Court, is frivol-ous and as such This cause is another of a series of proceedings brought by Lussy in both state and federal courts in which he has imputed i-ncompetence,bias and conspiracy against judges and parties involved in his actions, and he has subjected the judicia.1 process to denigration. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. The appeal of Richard C. Lussy from the judgment of dismissal of cause no. DV-84-93, in the District Court, Deer Lodge County, be and the same is hereby dismissed. 2. Richard C. Lussy is assessed costs in the sum of $250.00 payable to the Clerk of this Court for deposit in the State Treasury of the State of Fontana as past reimbursement to the State for the unnecessary expense and time he has taken of state officials. 3. The Cl-erk of this Court is directed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the District Court in and for the Third LTudicial District, Deer Jtodge County. Such copy of this order and judgment shall be and serve the office of a judgment for costs against Richard C. Lussy znd entitled judgment. to all of the lien protection of a Such judgment shall be docketed i n the District . Court under the cause file number from which the appeal arose. 4. Copy to of record, and to Richard C. Lussy. DATED this r Chief Justice Justices
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.
