The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a lawsuit filed by Mitchell S. Sanderson against Walsh County State's Attorney Kelley Cole, rejecting multiple jurisdictional challenges and upholding an award of attorney's fees in the case.
In *Sanderson v. Cole* (N.D. 2026), the state's highest court addressed several procedural and substantive issues raised by Sanderson in his appeal from the Walsh County District Court. Justice Crothers, writing for the court, affirmed the lower court's decision in its entirety.
The case began on Feb. 24, 2025, when Sanderson commenced the action by serving Cole with a summons and complaint. Cole subsequently filed the documents with the district court on March 17, 2025, along with a motion to dismiss under North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cole also requested attorney's fees, arguing that the complaint was frivolous in nature.
Sanderson raised multiple arguments on appeal, challenging both the district court's jurisdiction and its substantive rulings. He argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he claimed he did not file the complaint himself. Additionally, he contended that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because Cole allegedly failed to comply with North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2)(A)(ii) by filing the complaint without properly serving notice on Sanderson.
The appellant also challenged the district court's dismissal of his case as frivolous under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the court erred in making this determination. Sanderson specifically contested the application of prosecutorial immunity to what he characterized as an investigative or administrative act, rather than a prosecutorial function.
Procedural issues formed another significant component of Sanderson's appeal. He argued that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without holding a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Sanderson also asserted several due process violations, claiming that the court failed to follow proper procedural rules throughout the proceedings.
The attorney's fees award became another point of contention in the appeal. Sanderson challenged the district court's decision to award attorney's fees under North Dakota Century Code Section 28-26-01(2), arguing that the statutory requirements for such an award were not met in his case.
Beyond the specific legal issues, Sanderson made broader allegations about the conduct of both the court and opposing counsel. He sought reassignment on remand under North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct 2.11, suggesting that the original judge should not preside over any future proceedings in the matter. Additionally, Sanderson argued that Cole violated rules of professional conduct, though the specific nature of these alleged violations was not detailed in the available court documents.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's affirmance suggests that the justices found no merit in any of Sanderson's appellate arguments. The court's decision to affirm across all issues indicates that it agreed with the district court's handling of the jurisdictional questions, the determination that the lawsuit was frivolous, the application of prosecutorial immunity, and the award of attorney's fees.
Prosecutorial immunity represents a significant legal doctrine that protects prosecutors from civil lawsuits related to their official duties. The doctrine generally shields prosecutors from liability when they are performing prosecutorial functions, though it may not apply to administrative or investigative activities. Sanderson's challenge to the immunity application suggests he believed Cole's actions fell outside the protected category of prosecutorial conduct.
The frivolous lawsuit determination under Rule 12(b)(6) carries important implications for the case. When a court finds a lawsuit frivolous, it typically means the complaint lacks any legal basis or factual foundation that would support a viable claim for relief. Such determinations can lead to sanctions, including attorney's fees awards, as occurred in this case.
The attorney's fees award under North Dakota Century Code Section 28-26-01(2) reflects the state's approach to deterring frivolous litigation. This statute allows courts to award reasonable attorney's fees to defendants in certain circumstances, typically when the plaintiff's case lacks substantial justification.
The case highlights the procedural complexities that can arise in litigation against public officials, particularly prosecutors who enjoy certain legal protections in their official capacity. The multiple jurisdictional challenges raised by Sanderson demonstrate the various procedural hurdles that plaintiffs may face when bringing such actions.
With the Supreme Court's affirmance, the case appears to be concluded unless Sanderson seeks further review through other legal avenues. The decision reinforces the protections available to prosecutors acting within their official capacity and upholds the district court's authority to dismiss frivolous lawsuits and award attorney's fees in appropriate circumstances.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the high bar plaintiffs face when challenging the actions of prosecutorial officials and the courts' willingness to enforce procedural requirements and substantive legal doctrines that protect the integrity of the judicial system.