Hubbard v. Township
Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard v. Duluth Township, MN, Legal; The Two Harbors Police Department; The City of Hermantown, MN; The City of Superior, Wisconsin Police Department; The City of Duluth Police Headquarters; Lake County, MN Sheriff’s Office; Douglas County, WI Sheriff’s Department; St. Louis County, MN Sheriff’s Office; UMD Police Department; UMD IT Department; Minnesota State Patrol; Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, POST; Minnesota Department of Revenue; Minnesota IT Services, MNIT; The St. Louis County, MN; Lake Superior Forensic Technology and Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, ICAC; Minnesota Fusion Center, MNFC; The Minnesota Department of […]
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:26-cv-00341
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Hubbard v. Duluth Township, MN, Legal et al., Judge Provinzino dismissed Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard's complaint as frivolous because his allegations of a vast government conspiracy involving twenty agencies across two states — including claims that strangers' phones were made to 'chirp' at him and that an imposter replaced him in divorce court — were irrational and wholly incredible.
Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard, a self-represented litigant who has filed multiple similar cases in the District of Minnesota; the ruling directly bars this complaint from proceeding and warns that future frivolous filings may result in restrictions on his ability to file new lawsuits in that district without attorney representation or prior judicial approval.
What happened
In Hubbard v. Duluth Township, MN, Legal et al. (Case No. 26-cv-341), plaintiff Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard filed a roughly twenty-five-page complaint against twenty government entities — including multiple police departments, sheriff's offices, state agencies, a university police department, and a judicial district court — alleging a sweeping conspiracy to surveil him, steal his identity, corrupt court proceedings, manipulate passersby's phones to alert them to his presence, and interfere with his medical care. Hubbard asked the court to let him proceed without paying filing fees (called proceeding 'in forma pauperis'), which triggered a pre-service legal review of his complaint before any defendant was notified.
Federal law requires a court to dismiss a case filed without prepaid fees if the claims are frivolous — meaning they lack any arguable basis in law or fact. Courts are permitted to look beyond the surface of a complaint and dismiss claims whose factual allegations are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. The court found that Hubbard's allegations — including that fifteen fraudulent credit cards in his name were stolen from his apartment and replaced with old documents, that tracking software was secretly installed on his vehicles and devices, that strangers' phones 'chirped' because of community-alert apps tied to a sex-offender registry listing he never earned through a conviction, and that a convicted sex offender impersonated him in divorce court — were irrational and wholly incredible.
Judge Provinzino dismissed the entire complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), denied Hubbard's request to proceed without paying fees as moot, and denied his motion for a protective order as moot. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, meaning Hubbard cannot seek to appeal without paying fees either. The court noted that Hubbard had filed at least five similar frivolous cases in the same district within the past year and warned him that if he continues filing frivolous or meritless complaints, he will be barred from starting new lawsuits in the District of Minnesota unless he is represented by a lawyer or receives prior written approval from a judge.
The detailed version
Case: Hubbard v. Duluth Township, MN, Legal et al., No. 26-cv-341 (LMP/LIB), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge: Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge. Decided: March 9, 2026.
Procedural Posture Plaintiff Michael Fitzgerald Hubbard filed his complaint on January 15, 2026, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — that is, without prepaying the filing fee — under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because he sought IFP status, the complaint was subject to mandatory pre-service review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. Hubbard also filed a motion for a protective order and numerous exhibits. No defendant was served.
Allegations Hubbard's complaint named twenty defendants: Duluth Township MN Legal; Two Harbors Police Department; City of Hermantown MN; City of Superior Wisconsin Police Department; City of Duluth Police Headquarters; Lake County MN Sheriff's Office; Douglas County WI Sheriff's Department; St. Louis County MN Sheriff's Office; UMD Police Department; UMD IT Department; Minnesota State Patrol; Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); Minnesota Department of Revenue; Minnesota IT Services (MNIT); St. Louis County MN; Lake Superior Forensic Technology and Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC); Minnesota Fusion Center (MNFC); Minnesota Department of Transportation; Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC); and the 6th Judicial District Court MN.
Key allegations included: (1) fifteen U.S. Bank Visa credit cards fraudulently issued in his name with $25,000 monthly limits each, with documentary proof stolen from his apartment in January 2026 and replaced with old statements; (2) tracking software ('Rave Guardian' and 'XM Guardian') secretly installed on his devices and vehicles, which also altered 911 dispatch data to describe him as a 'mental patient,' and real-time deletion of his Google Drive files by state agents while he was in a government building; (3) placement on a sex-offender registry without a conviction, evidenced by 'City-Data' icons appearing over his property on maps and strangers' phones repeatedly 'chirping' due to community-alert apps when he walked past; (4) a convicted sex offender impersonating him in state divorce proceedings, manipulating courts to steal his business and assets while Hubbard was never served; and (5) defendants interfering with his healthcare providers to force discontinuation of his ADHD medication to cause him suffering.
Legal Standard Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court must dismiss an IFP action at any time if it is frivolous. A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The statute grants courts the unusual power to pierce the factual allegations of a complaint and dismiss claims whose factual contentions are 'clearly baseless' — including those that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' or 'delusional.' Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). Factual frivolousness is appropriate when the alleged facts 'rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.' Id. at 33.
Holding The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court found no arguable factual basis for the claim that twenty separate government entities across two states conspired to install tracking software on Hubbard's devices, hire imposters to appear in court for him, manipulate bystanders' phones, and interfere with his medications. The court denied the IFP Application and the motion for a protective order as moot. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), meaning any IFP request on appeal would also be denied.
Alternative Grounds for Dismissal (footnote) Even if the complaint were not frivolous, the court identified four additional independent grounds for dismissal: (1) police departments and sheriff's offices are generally not legal entities subject to suit in the Eighth Circuit; (2) state agency defendants are generally shielded from suit in federal court by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and no exception was alleged; (3) private citizens lack standing (the legal right) to enforce criminal statutes, yet Hubbard cited numerous criminal statutes as bases for his claims; and (4) the complaint failed to plausibly allege entitlement to the relief sought under the standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Litigation History and Warning The court noted that Hubbard had filed at least five substantially similar complaints in the District of Minnesota in the prior year, all of which were dismissed as frivolous or otherwise meritless before service. The court warned Hubbard that continued filing of frivolous or meritless complaints may result in a filing restriction requiring him to obtain prior written approval from a district judge or to be represented by an attorney before initiating any new lawsuit in the District of Minnesota. See Sassower v. Carlson, 930 F.2d 583, 584–85 (8th Cir. 1991).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.