Guertin v. Hennepin County

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota July 16, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MATTHEW D. GUERTIN,
Civil No. 24-2646 (JRT/DLM)
Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
HENNEPIN COUNTY, FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
a municipal entity, et al., ORDER AND IMMEDIATE HEARING

Defendants.

Matthew D. Guertin, 1075 Traditions Court, Chaska, MN 55318, pro se
Plaintiff.

Matthew D. Guertin brings this action against Defendants Hennepin County,
several state and county officials, and his defense attorney, seeking a temporary
restraining order to enjoin state court proceedings against him. Because the Court has
no authority to enjoin the state court proceedings, the Court will deny the Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Immediate Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Guertin was charged in state court with one count of reckless discharge of a
firearm and three counts of possession of a firearm without a serial number. See State v.
Guertin, No. A24-0780,

2024 WL 3320899

, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. July 2, 2024).  The state 
court later found Guertin incompetent to proceed.

Id.

  Following the incompetency 
finding, Guertin attempted to discharge his counsel and proceed pro se.

Id.

  The state 
court denied Guertin’s motion, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s 
decision on July 2, 2024.

Id.

 at *2–4.  Guertin subsequently filed this action under

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983

, 1985 and

18 U.S.C. § 1343

, alleging due process violations, ineffective 
assistance of counsel, civil conspiracy, gross negligence, violations of state forgery laws, 
and wire fraud.  (Compl., July 8, 2024, Docket No. 1.)  Guertin also filed a Motion for a 
Temporary  Restraining  Order  and  Immediate  Hearing  to  enjoin  the  state  court 

proceedings against him due to “ongoing fraudulent actions and procedural violations in 
his case.”  (Mot. for TRO and Immediate Hr’g at 1, July 8, 2024, Docket No. 2.) 
                           DISCUSSION                                    
    A court of the United States may grant an injunction to stay proceedings in state 

court only when “expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of 
its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”

28 U.S.C. § 2283

.  In addition, 
an exception to § 2283 permits a court to enjoin a state court proceeding “where a person 

about to be prosecuted in a state court can show that he will, if the proceeding in the 
state court is not enjoined, suffer irreparable damages.”  See Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37, 43

 (1971) (citing Ex parte Young,

209 U.S. 123

 (1908)).  However, “a federal court does 
not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court 

proceedings  merely  because  those  proceedings  interfere  with  a  protected  federal 
right . . ., even when the interference is unmistakably clear.”  Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. 
v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs,

398 U.S. 281, 294

 (1970).            
    The Court finds that none of the exceptions to § 2283 apply to Guertin’s situation.  
First, the Court is not aware of, nor does Guertin point to, an Act of Congress that 

expressly  authorizes  the  Court  to  enjoin  a  state  court  proceeding  under  these 
circumstances.  Second, the requested injunction is not necessary to aid in the Court’s 
jurisdiction and there are no facts indicating that federal injunctive relief is necessary to 
prevent the state court “from so interfering with [the Court’s] consideration or disposition 

of a case as to seriously impair the federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that 
case.”  Id. at 295.  Third, the Court has issued no judgment, so there is no judgment to 
protect or effectuate by issuing an injunction.  And finally, Guertin’s allegations that the 

state  court  proceedings  are  impeding  his  constitutional  rights  are  insufficient  to 
demonstrate irreparable harm to justify the issuance of an injunction.    Indeed, “even 
irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’”  Younger,

401 U.S. at 46

 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin,

271 U.S. 240, 243

 (1926)).  “[T]he threat to the 

plaintiff’s federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense 
against a single criminal prosecution.”

Id.

                              
    In  conclusion,  an  injunction  would  be  improper  under  these  circumstances.  
Guertin may raise his constitutional challenges in the state court where his charges are 

pending.    See  State  v.  Guertin,  No.  27-cr-23-1886  (Minn.  Dist.  Ct.  July  13,  2023).  
Additionally, there is no indication that the prosecution against Guertin has been brought 
in bad faith.  Put simply, the injury Guertin purportedly faces “is solely that incidental to 
every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith,” which does not entitle him 
to equitable relief.  Younger,

401 U.S. at 49

 (cleaned up).

ORDER

    Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Immediate 
Hearing [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.                                         


DATED: July 16, 2024                 _____s/John R. Tunheim_____          
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.              JOHN R. TUNHEIM                   
                                    United States District Judge