Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Cody Michael ATKINS, Petitioner and Appellant v. STATE of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee
[¶1] Cody Atkins appeals from orders denying his application for postconviction relief and concluding he is a vexatious litigant. In 2015, Atkins pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. He appealed the criminal judgment, and we affirmed. State v. Atkins, 2016 ND 13, ¶ 10, 873 N.W.2d 676. Since 2016, Atkins has filed seven applications for postconviction relief. See Atkins v. State, 2021 ND 83, ¶¶ 2-5, 959 N.W.2d 588. In June 2021, Atkins once again petitioned for postconviction relief, alleging newly discovered evidence, actual innocence, a Brady violation, and an invalid guilty plea. After a hearing, the district court denied relief under res judicata and misuse of process, N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12. The presiding judge of the judicial district concluded Atkins is a vexatious litigant and entered a pre-filing order under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 requiring Atkins to obtain leave of the court prior to filing any new litigation or documents.
[¶2] On appeal, Atkins argues the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing, denying his postconviction relief application, and concluding he is a vexatious litigant. To the extent Atkins was limited in presenting evidence at the postconviction hearing, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. We conclude the court did not err in denying postconviction relief under res judicata and misuse of process. Klose v. State, 2008 ND 143, ¶ 10, 752 N.W.2d 192 (res judicata precludes claims or variations of claims raised in previous proceedings, and misuse of process precludes claims that could have been raised in a prior postconviction proceeding or other proceeding). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Atkins is a vexatious litigant and entering the pre-filing order. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
Per Curiam.
[¶3] Daniel J. Crothers, Acting C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Gary H. Lee, D.J.[¶4] The Honorable Gary H. Lee, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, C.J., disqualified.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20220006
Decided: May 26, 2022
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)