Alvar v. State of Minnesota
Ryan W. Alvar v. State of Minnesota; St. Louis County; City of Duluth; Douglas County; City of Superior; Judge Shawn Pearson; Referee Kathryn Bergstrom; Child Support Magistrate Clarissa Ek; Judge Nicole Hopps; Judge Theresa Neo; Guardian ad Litem Jordan Mae Dokken; Landreville & Schwandt, P.A.; Alexander M. Landreville, Attorney; Katelynn Schwandt, Attorney; Reinke, Taylor, PLLC; Shawn C. Reinke, Attorney; Victoria M.B. Taylor, Attorney; Johnson Turner PLLC; Katie M. Jarvi, Attorney; Safe Haven Shelter and Resource Center; Justice North Civil Legal Aid; Domestic Abuse Intervention Program; Amy Jo Schmidt; Kartta Group; Sara Bovee; Ashlan Mahan; Chief Judge Leslie Beiers
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02792
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Alvar v. State of Minnesota et al., Judge Katherine Menendez denied plaintiff Ryan W. Alvar's motion to reconsider a prior ruling, upheld a magistrate judge's order sealing a Guardian ad Litem report, and denied Alvar's request to temporarily block child-support enforcement actions, finding that the court must stay out of his ongoing state court proceedings.
Pro se litigants involved in family court proceedings who attempt to bring federal civil rights claims challenging ongoing state court child-custody or child-support matters; parties seeking emergency federal court intervention to stop state-ordered child-support enforcement actions such as license suspensions or tax intercepts.
What happened
In Alvar v. State of Minnesota et al., Ryan W. Alvar, representing himself, sued a large group of defendants—including state judges, attorneys, counties, and advocacy organizations—challenging actions taken in his state court child-custody and child-support proceedings. He had previously asked the federal court to step in and block those proceedings, but the court had already declined to do so, citing a legal doctrine (known as Younger abstention) that prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state court cases. In this order, the court addressed three new requests Alvar filed: a motion to reconsider that earlier ruling, an objection to a magistrate judge's decision to seal a Guardian ad Litem family court report he had filed publicly, and a new request to block child-support enforcement actions such as the suspension of his driver's license and interception of his tax refunds.
On the motion to reconsider, the court found that Alvar presented no new evidence and identified no clear legal or factual mistakes in the prior ruling, which are the only grounds that justify reconsidering a prior order. On the sealing issue, Alvar had filed a Guardian ad Litem report—a confidential document from his state custody case evaluating his family—as a public court exhibit, even though the state court had previously ordered him not to share it publicly. Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois ordered the document sealed, and Alvar objected. The court reviewed that decision under a highly deferential standard (meaning it would only overturn it if clearly wrong) and found that the magistrate judge applied the correct legal standard and gave adequate reasons. On the child-support enforcement request, Alvar sought to stop St. Louis County from suspending his licenses, reporting his unpaid balance to credit bureaus, and intercepting his tax refunds, arguing the underlying child-support order was flawed and that the harm to him could not be undone. The court found he had not shown he was likely to win his case, and that the same reason it had previously declined to intervene—ongoing state proceedings—still applied.
Judge Katherine Menendez denied all three of Alvar's requests. She also issued a case management instruction noting that because the case is currently on hold pending completion of the state court proceedings, the defendants are not required to respond to any further filings Alvar submits unless the court specifically tells them to. The case remains stayed, meaning it is paused in federal court while the related state court matters continue.
The detailed version
This order addresses three motions filed by pro se plaintiff Ryan W. Alvar in a federal civil rights lawsuit arising from his state court child-custody and child-support proceedings. The case involves a large number of defendants including state court judges, a Guardian ad Litem, multiple law firms and attorneys, counties, municipalities, and various organizations.
Background
In an October 14, 2025 order, the district court had denied Alvar's motion for a preliminary injunction (a court order temporarily blocking the defendants from taking certain actions), dismissed his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief without prejudice (meaning he could potentially refile), and stayed (paused) his damages claims. The basis was Younger abstention—a doctrine under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings. Separately, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois had entered orders on October 22 and October 24, 2025, granting a motion by the State Defendants to seal a Guardian ad Litem report Alvar had filed publicly as a court exhibit.
Motion to Reconsider (Denied)
Alvar sought reconsideration of the October 14th Order, asking the court to vacate the Younger abstention ruling and rule on a pending motion to seal. Under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must first obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration, and must show compelling circumstances. The standard requires showing either a manifest error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence. Citing Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407 (8th Cir. 1988), and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Saint Paul, 642 F. Supp. 2d 902 (D. Minn. 2009), the court found Alvar met neither requirement and denied the motion.
Appeal/Objection to Magistrate's Sealing Orders (Denied)
Alvar had filed as a public exhibit a Guardian ad Litem family court report from his state custody case, with only minimal redactions. The state court had previously determined this report was confidential and ordered Alvar not to disclose it publicly. The State Defendants moved to seal it. Magistrate Judge Brisbois granted the sealing motion (October 22nd Order) and denied Alvar's motion to reconsider (October 24th Order). Alvar then objected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and D. Minn. Local Rule 72.2(a).
The standard of review for a magistrate judge's nondispositive (non-final) order is highly deferential: reversal only if 'clearly erroneous or contrary to law.' The court rejected Alvar's two main arguments. First, Alvar claimed the October 24th Order conflicted with the October 22nd Order due to a typographical error in the latter; the court found the October 24th Order adequately clarified any ambiguity. Second, Alvar argued the orders failed to comply with Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984), which requires specific findings before closing court proceedings to the public. The court distinguished Press-Enterprise as applying to the closure of criminal trials, not to the sealing of documents in a civil case, and found the magistrate judge had applied the correct civil standard and fully explained his reasoning. The court also briefly rejected Alvar's additional arguments regarding First Amendment narrow-tailoring, mischaracterization of his motion, and alleged expansion of sealing without a motion. The October 22nd and October 24th Orders were affirmed.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Denied)
Alvar sought an emergency court order (a temporary restraining order, or TRO) blocking St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services, the Minnesota Department of Human Services, and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety from: suspending his driver's and professional/occupational licenses; reporting his arrears to credit bureaus; and collecting through revenue recapture, tax refund intercept, or other enforcement mechanisms. His unpaid child-support balance exceeded $11,000–$12,000, and he faced a driver's license suspension effective November 7, 2025.
Alvar argued he was likely to succeed on the merits because the child-support order itself was 'defective' (citing a statement he attributed to Judge Nicole Hopps that his child-support case would need to be reopened), and that the harms—license suspension and credit damage—were irreparable. The court denied the TRO, finding Alvar failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of any claim. The court reaffirmed its Younger abstention analysis, noting that the state court proceedings were still ongoing and that Alvar's vague assertion about the state court judge's comments did not establish that he lacked an adequate remedy in state court, nor did it support his claim that the state itself had deemed the child-support order defective.
Case Management Instruction
Because the case remains stayed pending completion of state proceedings, and because Alvar continued to submit filings seeking federal intervention, the court instructed that defendants are under no obligation to respond to future filings unless specifically directed by the court.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.