Brock Fredin v. Jamie Kreil

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2406
___________________________
Brock Fredin
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Jamie Kreil
Defendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 22-2407
___________________________
Brock Fredin
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller; Catherine Marie Schaefer
Defendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 22-2421
___________________________
Brock Fredin
Plaintiff - Appellant

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
v.
Lindsey E. Middlecamp
Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: January 13, 2023
Filed: January 31, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Brock Fredin returns to the court seeking
review of various orders filed in his three related diversity tort actions. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The last time the parties were before this court, orders were affirmed that (1)
imposed an injunction relating to certain videos and websites involving defendants,
their counsel, and the district court; and (2) directed Fredin to show cause why he
did not comply with the injunction. See Fredin v. Middlecamp, 855 Fed. Appx. 314
(8th Cir. 2021) (unpublished per curiam), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, (8th Cir.
Nov. 10, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1417 (2022). Fredin now appeals district
court1 orders that (1) imposed deferred sanctions for violating the injunction order;
1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
and (2) denied his motions to recuse the district court judge, disqualify opposing
counsel, and sanction defendants and their attorneys.
This court finds no basis for reversal. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing monetary sanctions on Fredin. See Willhite v. Collins, 459
F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; this court accords substantial
deference to district court’s determination that sanctions are warranted because of
its familiarity with case); see also Schlafly v. Eagle F., 970 F.3d 924, 937-38 (8th
Cir. 2020) (discussing court’s reasonable considerations in imposing monetary
sanction). Reversal also is not warranted based on the denial of Fredin’s motions to
recuse the district court judge, disqualify opposing counsel, and sanction defendants
and their attorneys. See A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst, 56 F.3d 849, 859 (8th Cir. 1995)
(sanction of disqualification of counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion); cf.
Gordon v. Unifund CCR Partners, 345 F.3d 1028, 1030 (8th Cir. 2003) (court abused
its discretion in granting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 motion where party failed to comply with
procedural requirements, including serving prepared motion on opposing party in
compliance with 21-day “safe harbor” provision).
The district court’s orders are affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Fredin’s pending
motion to disqualify and sanction counsel is denied.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --