Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County
Steve Salvador Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County; Sharon Jones; Hon. David Lutz; Hon. Tanya O’Brien; Hon. Dannia L. Edwards; Lydia Clemens; Michelle Cathleen Ybarra; Keith Ellison; and Jeff Timmerman
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01948
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 26
In Steve Salvador Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County et al., Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed with prejudice all claims brought by plaintiff Steve Salvador Ybarra against judges, a guardian ad litem, a legal aid organization and its attorney, state attorneys general, and his ex-wife, finding that his allegations of a sweeping conspiracy to rig his state divorce and child-custody case failed because the judges and other officials were immune from suit, the private defendants were not shown to be acting under government authority, and all other claims lacked adequate factual support.
Self-represented litigants who file federal civil rights or RICO lawsuits seeking to challenge or interrupt ongoing state court divorce and child-custody proceedings; parties who sue state court judges, guardians ad litem, or government attorneys for their conduct in those proceedings; and parties who attempt to hold private legal aid organizations liable under civil rights statutes without alleging specific facts showing those organizations acted in concert with the government.
What happened
Steve Salvador Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County et al. arose from Steve Salvador Ybarra's ongoing divorce and child-custody dispute in Minnesota state court. Ybarra filed a federal lawsuit claiming that three state court judges, a court-appointed guardian ad litem (a person appointed by a court to represent a child's interests), a legal aid organization called Legal Assistance of Dakota County and its attorney Sharon Jones, the Minnesota Attorney General and an assistant attorney general, and his ex-wife Michelle Cathleen Ybarra all conspired to rig the state court proceedings against him. He alleged violations of federal civil rights laws (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986) and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and he asked the federal court to stop or interfere with the state proceedings, award him damages, and make criminal referrals, among other relief.
The court addressed multiple overlapping legal barriers to Ybarra's claims. First, regarding his requests to stop or supervise the state proceedings, the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine — a rule that requires federal courts to stay out of ongoing state court cases, especially those involving family law matters — and found all three required conditions were met. Second, as to the state court judges and guardian ad litem, the court found they were protected by absolute judicial immunity, meaning judges and court-appointed officers cannot be sued for money damages for actions taken in their official roles, even if those actions were allegedly biased or corrupt. Third, as to the Attorney General and his assistant, the court found they were protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for their roles defending the state in litigation. Fourth, as to Legal Assistance and Sharon Jones, the court found that Ybarra had not sufficiently alleged they were acting under government authority or had reached any agreement with state officials to violate his rights, which are required elements of his civil rights claims. His RICO claims also failed because he did not allege a real enterprise or specific criminal acts. As to his ex-wife Michelle Cathleen Ybarra, the court found both that she was likely never properly served with the lawsuit and that the claims against her were frivolous for lack of any supporting allegations.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted both motions to dismiss — one filed by the state defendants and one filed by Legal Assistance of Dakota County and Sharon Jones — and also dismissed all claims against Michelle Cathleen Ybarra on the court's own initiative without a motion. Every one of Ybarra's numerous additional motions, including multiple emergency requests for temporary restraining orders, motions to disqualify judges and the attorney general's office, motions for sanctions, and requests for default judgment, were denied either for lack of merit or as moot. The entire case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Ybarra cannot refile these same claims in federal court.
The detailed version
Case: Steve Salvador Ybarra v. Legal Assistance of Dakota County et al., No. 25-cv-1948 (KMM/DTS) Court: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota Judge: Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge Date: November 18, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Steve Salvador Ybarra filed this action on May 1, 2025, as one of multiple federal lawsuits related to his ongoing divorce and child-custody proceedings in Dakota County, Minnesota state court. He alleged a broad conspiracy involving: - Three First Judicial District of Minnesota judges: Hon. David Lutz, Hon. Tanya O'Brien, and Hon. Dannia L. Edwards - Court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Lydia Clemens - Legal Assistance of Dakota County (LADC) and its staff attorney Sharon Jones - His ex-wife, Michelle Cathleen Ybarra
In a subsequent Amended Complaint filed May 19, 2025, Ybarra added: - Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (official capacity) - Assistant Attorney General Jeff Timmerman (official and personal capacity)
The court noted that the Amended Complaint violated Local Rule 15.1 by failing to be complete in itself, but addressed its contents anyway.
Ybarra's legal theories included: - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights claims for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law) - 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and (3) (conspiracy to deprive civil rights) - 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (failure to prevent a § 1985 conspiracy) - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) — civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) claims
Relief sought included: declaratory judgment, injunctive relief pausing state proceedings, compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages, criminal referrals, and federal monitoring of the state case.
The court stayed the case on May 23, 2025 due to the volume of Ybarra's filings, pending resolution of the motions to dismiss.
Legal Standard
The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim), under which a complaint must contain enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Mere conclusory statements and threadbare recitals of legal elements are insufficient. The court cited Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Holdings and Analysis
1. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief — Younger Abstention
All of Ybarra's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine (Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)), which requires federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings when: (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) it implicates important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. All three factors were satisfied here: the divorce and custody case was ongoing (though it had concluded temporarily and been reopened); domestic relations matters implicate core state interests; and Ybarra was actively litigating similar issues in state court. The court noted this was not a novel issue for Ybarra, as two of his prior federal cases had already been dismissed on the same grounds.
Although Younger dismissals are ordinarily without prejudice (as they concern the court's subject-matter jurisdiction), the court dismissed these claims with prejudice because the underlying claims also independently failed under Rule 12(b)(6) or were frivolous.
2. State Defendants — Immunity Bars All Claims
Judges Lutz, O'Brien, and Edwards
Dismissed with prejudice on grounds of absolute judicial immunity. Judges are absolutely immune from suits for money damages for acts taken in their judicial capacity, even if those acts are alleged to be malicious or corrupt. The acts Ybarra attributed to the judges — denying hearings, issuing protective orders, showing bias, and failing to disclose conflicts — are all typical judicial functions. The exception to judicial immunity (acts entirely outside judicial capacity or taken in complete absence of jurisdiction) did not apply. Claims in both official and personal capacities were dismissed.
GAL Lydia Clemens
Dismissed with prejudice. Guardians ad litem are entitled to absolute immunity for acts within the scope of their court-appointed duties. All of Ybarra's allegations against Clemens fell squarely within those duties, and Ybarra alleged no acts outside that protection.
Attorney General Keith Ellison and Assistant Attorney General Jeff Timmerman
Dismissed with prejudice. Both were entitled to absolute immunity for their roles defending the state defendants in civil litigation. This immunity extended to Timmerman's personal-capacity claims as well. The court noted that Ybarra's core allegation — that Timmerman's prior employment at Dakota County tainted the defense — lacked legal merit and was in any event shielded by immunity.
The court also denied Ybarra's motion to disqualify the Attorney General's Office, finding he lacked standing to seek that relief (no alleged personal harm) and suggesting the naming of Ellison and Timmerman as defendants appeared designed to manufacture a conflict of interest, which courts do not permit.
3. LADC Defendants — Failure to State a Claim
42 U.S.C. § 1983
To hold a private party liable under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege the private party was a "willful participant in joint activity" with a state actor — a "meeting of the minds" — regarding violation of constitutional rights, pleaded with specificity and factual support. The court found Ybarra's allegations insufficient on two grounds: (a) he failed to show Jones exercised state power — he actually conceded LADC is funded primarily by private charitable organizations, not government funds; and (b) he failed to allege specific facts showing any agreement between Jones and the state defendants. His allegations of "collusion" between Jones and Clemens amounted only to Jones agreeing with Clemens's custody recommendations. Allegations against LADC itself were even more threadbare.
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
Requires pleading with particularity: (1) a civil conspiracy; (2) aimed at depriving civil rights; (3) an act in furtherance; and (4) damages. Also requires allegations of class-based discriminatory animus. The court found Ybarra failed on the first element (no particularized conspiracy facts) and also failed to allege any discriminatory intent based on class membership.
42 U.S.C. § 1986
Because § 1986 (failure to prevent a § 1985 conspiracy) is entirely dependent on a valid § 1985 claim, and that claim failed, § 1986 also failed.
Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d))
To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must allege conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. To allege an association-in-fact enterprise, a plaintiff must show a common purpose, relationships among associates, and sufficient longevity; acts taken independently and without coordination cannot establish an enterprise. The court found Ybarra failed to allege any substantive relationship between LADC defendants and most co-defendants beyond shared participation in the legal proceedings; that Judge Lutz had previously done pro bono work for LADC — the only alleged connection — was insufficient without details. Further, the conduct Ybarra characterized as nefarious consisted of legal work, which generally does not qualify as a predicate RICO act in the absence of corruption. Because § 1962(c) failed, the § 1962(d) conspiracy claim also failed.
All LADC defendant claims dismissed with prejudice.
4. Michelle Cathleen Ybarra — Improper Service and Frivolousness
The court dismissed all claims against Michelle Ybarra on its own initiative (without a motion from her, as she never appeared) on two independent grounds:
(a) Improper service: The proof of service filed for Michelle Ybarra identified the server only as "Danielle" (no surname), lacked a proper signature, and appeared to bear Mr. Ybarra's own signature where the server's signature was required. The cost of service was listed as $0, contrasting with the $50 fee paid to the process server for all other defendants. The court found this failed to satisfy Rule 4's requirements and concluded Ybarra had not established valid service, depriving the court of personal jurisdiction over Michelle Ybarra. The court also noted that Ybarra appeared to serve subsequent filings on Michelle Ybarra only by email without her consent — also improper. The court expressed concern that Ybarra may have deliberately filed a deficient proof of service, warning him that misrepresentations in documents signed under penalty of perjury could have consequences.
(b) Frivolousness: Ybarra's allegations against Michelle Ybarra — that she misrepresented her finances on a legal aid application, was noncompliant with discovery, and made statements to the GAL that Ybarra believed were false — provided no basis for the federal civil rights or RICO claims he asserted. He alleged no state action, no conspiracy with state officials, no predicate criminal acts, and no relationship with co-defendants outside the state court proceedings.
Dismissed with prejudice.
Additional Motions Denied
The court denied all of Ybarra's numerous pending motions, including: - Multiple emergency motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions - Motions to disqualify the state court bench and the Attorney General's Office - Motions for sanctions under Rule 11 against Sharon Jones and Jeff Timmerman (noting that Timmerman had raised real concerns about Ybarra's own potential Rule 11 violations, including misquoting a case) - Motions for default judgment and declaratory relief - Motion to strike filings by Timmerman - Other miscellaneous motions
The court also warned Ybarra that as a self-represented (pro se) litigant, he remains bound by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which prohibits frivolous filings and misrepresentations to the court.
Disposition
Both motions to dismiss granted. All claims against all defendants dismissed with prejudice. All outstanding motions denied. Judgment to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.