USA v. Haapaniemi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BJØRN ERIK HAAPANIEMI, f/k/a
PETER LEE NORRIS, f/k/a PETER LEE
BJØRN NÖRRIS,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
ORDER REGARDING
ATTEMPTED FILINGS
Before the Court is a voluminous set of attempted filings by Defendant. The
Court has reviewed the filings, per the Court’s Order at Docket 167. 	Accordingly, the
Court finds:
1. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received June 21, 2022, does not comply
with the Order at Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Notice
of Defendants Release Plans (Due to Designation to Crap USA:).” 	The attempted filing
contains profanity. A copy has been provided to the United States Probation Office.
2. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 1, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. 	Per the Court’s prior Order at Docket 204 and
federal statute, only a filing that contains an Order from the Ninth Circuit granting
permission to pursue a second or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 2
appropriate. 	The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Submission of Copy of
Filing to 9th Circuit Court on Second 2255 Motion/Request.”
3. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 9, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Request for Specific Documents for Purposes of
Post-Conviction.”
4. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 15, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion to Compel Sentencing Atty to Address
Defendant to Solve Sentencing Issues He Caused.”
5. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 18, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion to Compel Public Defender Office/CJA
to Respond to Defendant at Issue.”
6. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 22, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. 	The attempted filing contains derogatory and
profane language. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion to Compel
Public (Federal) Defender to Respond to Outstanding Issue.”
7. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 22, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Invitation to DOJ + Court for Informal
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 3
Telephonic Conference for them to do ‘Damage Control.’” A copy has been provided to
the United States Probation Office.
8. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 25, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Request to Transfer Administration of Case to
Home District at Issue.” A copy has been provided to the United States Probation Office.
9. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 25, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition to Compel Poulson, Cavanaugh, or
Officer of Fed Defender Office to Correct Incorrect (by them) Walsh Act entry in
BOP/PSR.”
10. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 25, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Update to Court on Status of (State) Defendants
Filed Case on Parties this Court Used as ‘Convenient Diversion.’”
11. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 26, 2022, does not
comply with the Order at Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court
disapproves and denies the docketing of “Notice of Subjects of Evidentiary Hearing
Requested on Judicial Bias per 28 U.S.C. § 144, and 255.”1
1 The Court finds this to be a frivolous filing and is procedurally flawed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 144. Section 255 applies to Court of International Trade. Further, the attempted filing does not present
any elements that would cause the Court to consider recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. See also United
States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1200–01 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (noting that a judicial officer
has an “an equally compelling obligation not to recuse where recusal [is] not appropriate.”).
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 4
12. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 26, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition for
Writ of Mandamus in Re: Attached Petition to Compel Judge to Recuse/Reassign to New
District.”2
13. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received August 29, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Writ of
Mandamus to Compel Request for Admission Previously Denied—(In Re: Fed. Civ. P.
36(a)(1)(C).”
14. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received September 2, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court disapproves
and denies the docketing of “Submission of Request for Admission/Petition—Motion to
Compel Doc. Production.”
15. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received September 26, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court disapproves
and denies the docketing of “Omnibus Request Misc. Relief—Re: Now Conceded Altered
Documents, Shambeck, Doc. 167.”
16. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received September 26, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Notice of
Report of Counsel to Bar on Violation of Ethics.”
2 The attempted filing is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th
Cir. 2003); Benny v. U.S. Parole Comm., 295 F.3d 977, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 4 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 5
17. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received September 30, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains derogatory language and profanity.
The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition to Quash Doc. 167/Notice of
Events Regarding Document Tampering and Creation (Defense Atty + AUSA) in Bar
Investigation (AK).”3
18. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received September 30, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains derogatory language and profanity.
The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Request for Sua Sponte Dismissal of
Individual Protective Order Already in Place Prior in AZ—(Redundant).”4
19. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 3, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The Court cannot produce Arizona state court documents or
other unidentified documents sent after Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the
docketing “Request for 2 Documents—Request for Order for Cavanaugh to Cease/Desist
Harassing Texts.”
20. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 3, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The attempted filing contains profanity and derides the Court.
The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion/Petition for Modification Sua
Sponte Dismissal of Issued Protective Order in Case Above.”
3 The Court declines to reconsider the Order at Docket 167. 	Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g); 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h).
4 The Court declines to reconsider the Protective Order at Docket 13 and the No-Contact Orders at
Dockets 14 and 110. Local Criminal Rule 47.1(g).
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 5 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 6
21. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 3, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The attempted filing contains profanity and derides the Court.
The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Omnibus Motion to Compel Action
on Previous Filings (Remove Biased Judge, Dismiss Doc. 167, Modify Prot. Order to
Remove Individual Already Named in Order (AZ).”
22. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 3, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Writ of
Mandamus in Re: Removal of Bias Judge (The Previous Writ Buried by Same Judge).”
23. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 7, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Notification
to Court of Action Regarding AUSA/Defense Atty Altered/Forged/Created Documents.”
24. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 14, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion to
Reconsider 2255 Motion in Doc. 126 Decision Based on Now Demonstrated AUSA +
Defense Atty Misconduct.”5
25. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 14, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court disapproves
and denies the docketing of “Notice of Updated Info on Immigration – Petition to Request
Action Under 8 USC 1229 As Result.”
5 The Court declines to reconsider its Order at Docket 126. Local Civil Rule 47.1(g); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h).
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 6 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 7
26. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 14, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. 	The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Writ of
Subpoena[sic] Duces Tecum (In Re: Randall Cavanaugh[)].”
27. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 18, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The attempted filing contains profanity. The Court disapproves
and denies the docketing of “Petition to Court/AUSA to Show Cause Why No Response
on Issues Re: AUSA Document Tampering, Etc.”
28. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received November 18, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion for
Reconsideration of 2021 28 USC 2255 Motion Based on New Developments (Forged
Docs). Request for Attorney.”6
29. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received December 18, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Request to
Screen AUSA ((Walker) (Defendant in Another Case)).”
30. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received December 19, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition for
Judicial Reconsideration of 2255 Motion by Alternative Counsel.”7
6 The Court declines to reconsider its Order at Docket 126. Local Civil Rule 47.1(g); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h).
7 The Court declines to reconsider its Orders at Dockets 126 and 204. Local Civil Rule 47.1(g);
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 7 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 8
31. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received December 19, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Motion for
Magistrate to Make Determination on 2255 Reconsideration.”
32. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received December 19, 2022, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition for
Review: Re: Court Violations of Procedural + Due Process.”
33. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received January 3, 2023, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Request to
Reopen Case on 2255 Temporarily Under 60(b)(6) for Cause.”
34. 	Defendant’s attempted filing received January 13, 2023, does not
comply with Docket 167. The Court disapproves and denies the docketing of “Petition to
Reopen Case Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and (b)(6) and Set Aside Judgment Based on
Evidentiary Misconduct/Alter.”
Defendant’s attempted filings are extensive and voluminous. 	Defendant
refuses to abide by the Court’s Order at Docket 167, despite repeated warnings from the
Court. 	Defendant’s last thirty-four attempted filings demonstrate an inability to follow
simple guidance, a lack of respect for efficient docket management, and a failure to present
meritorious issues for the Court’s adjudication. Defendant’s attempted filings range from
the procedurally defective to the purposefully belligerent. All of these filings are frivolous.
Beyond the frivolity of these attempted filings, Defendant demonstrates an
unflagging intent of malicious harassment of the parties to this litigation—the attorneys,
the witnesses, the victims of his crimes, and the Court itself. Defendant, after knowingly
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 8 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 9
and voluntarily entering a guilty plea, refuses to accept responsibility for his criminal
actions. 	Instead, he levies a barrage of revisionist theories, manipulative requests, and
virulent tirades. Regardless of Defendant’s ideas or opinions, he pleaded guilty to federal
crimes, this Court sentenced him, and now he must face those consequences. 	The Court
cannot and will not entertain extraneous, unsupported, and procedurally defective motions,
petitions, writs, or correspondence.
Lastly, Defendant’s filings continue to use profane, hostile, and derogatory
language. 	This ire has been directed at the Court, at attorneys, witnesses and victims
involved with his criminal proceedings, as well as the Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Probation,
the State of Arizona, and the United States of America, generally. 	Defendant frequently
references the facts of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), as a justification for his
inappropriate language. 	However, the First Amendment does not entitle him to use the
public docket of this case for a platform for his abuse. 	While Defendant may repeatedly
cite to the canon of construction that instructs courts to interpret pro se filings with
leniency, no canon excuses such behavior.
The Court has rejected over seventy of Defendant’s attempted filings for non-
compliance. 	The Court gave warnings to Defendant at Dockets 167, 191, 192, 195, and
198 that his repeated inappropriate filings could result in further restrictions.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice to the parties of this case, other litigants
before this Court, and for judicial economy, the Court will no longer respond to
Defendant’s attempted filings.
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 9 of 10

United States v. Haapaniemi 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB
Order Regarding Attempted Filings 	Page 10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Clerk of Court shall submit any attempted filings from Defendant
directly to Chambers.
2. 	The 	Court 	shall 	review 	the filings. 	However, 	no 	response or
acknowledgment will be issued.
3. 	In the event the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grants leave for
Defendant to file a second or successive Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(h), the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to docket the appropriate motion.
4. 	Defendant is advised that any mail received that expresses an intent
to violate the conditions of his release will be forwarded to the U.S. Probation Office.
5. 	Defendant is further advised that any mail received from Defendant
containing threats to the safety of others or the Court will be forwarded to the appropriate
law enforcement entities.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS Document 212 Filed 01/27/23 Page 10 of 10