Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification: Why I’m Challenging Last Week’s Federal Order
- Ryan Alvar
- Oct 21
- 7 min read
A Quick Update
Last week, the federal court issued its first ruling in Alvar v. State of Minnesota 25-cv-2792 (KMM/LIB).
The order from October 14, 2025 [Doc. 65] dismissed part of my case and put the rest on hold. It applied the Younger v. Harris doctrine—meaning the federal court and state court cannot both exercise jurisdiction over the same controversy at the same time.
The court dismissed (without prejudice) my requests for declaratory and injunctive relief under Younger and stayed my damages claims. “Without prejudice” means those claims can be brought back when legally appropriate—such as after the state custody case is finished.
Doc. 65 - October 14, 2025 Federal Court Order:
Today I filed a new pleading:
Doc. 67 - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification:
Doc. 68 - Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification:
This motion asks the court to revisit that order and decide a question it did not address: the State’s Motion to Seal ECF No. 6—the filing that placed this constitutional issue squarely in federal court.
1️⃣ Dismissal and Stay Both Pause the Case
The court’s order did two things:
Dismissed (without prejudice): ended, for now, my requests for injunctive and declaratory relief under Younger. Federal courts generally avoid interfering while a state case is pending.
Stayed: paused the damages claims until the state process—including appeals—is over.
In practice, both rulings pause everything, leaving no forum for current constitutional harm. That’s the problem this motion challenges.
2️⃣ What the Court Got Wrong — Custody vs. Constitutional Harms
The October 14 order treated every state action as a custody issue, even those that have nothing to do with custody. Retaliatory contempt sanctions, suppression of speech, and the unlawful sealing of public records are not “parenting disputes” — they are constitutional violations.
By lumping everything together under “custody,” the order effectively shielded those non-custody harms from federal protection, even though no ongoing state proceeding can remedy them. That’s precisely the type of overreach Younger was never meant to cover.
Parents — and citizens — have the right to seek federal relief when state actors violate the Constitution. These violations should not be postponed until the end of a custody case that could take years to finish.
3️⃣ Why the State’s Sealing Motion Changes Everything
August 19, 2025 the State of Minnesota filed Doc. 18 – Motion to Seal ECF No. 6 asking the federal court to seal the exhibit of my complaint that contained the January 2, 2025 Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Report—the same document that triggered my contempt finding and jail time in state court.
By filing that motion, the State petitioned the federal court to decide whether Rule 4 of the Minnesota Rules of Public Access makes that report confidential.
It was a formal request for a federal interpretation of Rule 4.
Magistrate Judge Brisbois accepted full written briefing and canceled oral argument, stating the record was complete (ECF No. 25). Once the State invoked federal authority that way, Younger abstention no longer fit—because the State itself had placed the confidentiality question within federal jurisdiction.
Doc. 18 – Motion to Seal ECF No. 6:
Doc. 24 – Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Seal ECF No. 6:
Doc. 25 – (Text-Only) Order/Notice- Cancelling Motions Hearing:
4️⃣ What Rule 4 and Rule 8 Actually Say
Under Minnesota law, only specific categories of information—psychological or medical records, social-security numbers, and similar identifiers—are confidential. That’s spelled out in Rule 8.04 of the Rules of Juvenile Protection Procedure.
Rule 4 of the Rules of Public Access governs how court staff handle filings inside the system; it does not restrict a parent’s right to speak or publish outside of court. As I wrote in my opposition brief: “Rule 4 and Rule 8 are administrative filing rules, not blanket speech restrictions.”
No protective order was ever sought or entered under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03—the only lawful method to restrict disclosure. Instead, the court declared the report confidential and enforced that declaration through contempt. Even in the most sensitive juvenile cases, Minnesota law allows only targeted redaction of confidential lines, not blanket secrecy.
The Legislature already struck a balance: protect private data, but preserve transparency. The judiciary cannot expand that balance into blanket secrecy or convert record-access rules into gag orders.
5️⃣ Why the Report Is Available at the Courthouse
The State’s own brief admits the GAL report “would be available to the public at the courthouse.” That’s because opposing counsel filed it publicly in the state record.
On June 26, 2025, Defendant Shawn Reinke submitted a Counter Motion for Contempt (Index #126) and Affidavit (Index #127) with Exhibit 3—my blog post containing the full GAL Report. It was never filed under seal.
Even after the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office acknowledged that public filing (Aug. 12–13 emails), it took no action to seal it in state court. Instead, it rushed to federal court to seal the identical document there. If the report were “confidential by law,” the state court would have sealed it within their own records. It remains viewable today, proving the contradiction in the State’s position.
Doc. 11-4 – Exhibit M (Counter Motion for Contempt (Index #126) and Affidavit (Index #127) with Exhibit 3):
This document is filed under seal as it also contains our child support worksheets that include our financials.
6️⃣ How Judicial Estoppel Applies
Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting inconsistent positions in different proceedings to gain an unfair advantage. After petitioning the federal court to apply Rule 4 and decide the confidentiality of the GAL report, the State cannot now claim that the same issue lies solely within state-court jurisdiction. By doing so, it effectively invoked a federal answer and created the very jurisdiction it now asks the court to disclaim.
Having invited federal adjudication, the State cannot now insist that the question is purely a state-court matter. Under Lapides v. Board of Regents (535 U.S. 613), when a state voluntarily submits an issue to federal court, it waives abstention and immunity defenses. That is exactly what occurred here—and why the October 14 order must be revisited.
7️⃣ The Contempt and TRO Connection
The GAL Report is not peripheral—it is the basis for the contempt ruling and my incarceration.
If the federal court decides the Rule 4 question now and confirms the report was never confidential under Minnesota law, it resolves the constitutional issue behind my Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) as well.
The federal answer would show the contempt order enforced an unlawful prior restraint on speech—something the First Amendment does not allow.
Doc. 5 - Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction:
Doc. 6 - Exhibits:
Doc. 8 - Supplement to Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order:
Doc. 11 - Second Supplement to Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order:
Doc. 14 - Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order:
Doc. 22 - Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order:
8️⃣ Why Reconsideration Is Needed Now
The record is complete. The State already placed the confidentiality issue before the federal court, and Judge Brisbois took it under advisement. Delaying that decision under Younger leaves ongoing constitutional harm unaddressed—the opposite of what 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was created to prevent.
My motion asks the court to:
Vacate the portion of the October 14 order applying Younger to non-custody issues such as speech and confidentiality, or
Clarify how the pending sealing motion fits within that ruling and decide it on the merits.
If the court disagrees, I will take this question to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I’ve also requested that it consider certifying two questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b):
(1) whether Younger applies when the state itself invoked federal jurisdiction, and
(2) whether a fit parent may seek temporary federal relief to protect his family from ongoing constitutional violations.
9️⃣ What This Case Is and Is Not
This case does not ask the federal court to decide final custody. It asks whether a parent who has no finding of harm may petition the federal government for protection while a state court process violates his constitutional rights.
That is precisely why Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983—to ensure a federal forum exists when state institutions become the instrument of deprivation.
🔟 Conclusion
“This case exemplifies why Congress enacted § 1983: to provide citizens a federal forum when state systems perpetuate constitutional violations. Leaving such harms unaddressed until years of custody litigation conclude would extinguish the very rights the statute protects. Minnesota’s own legislature has already enacted statutes to preserve the parent–child relationship in precisely these circumstances, recognizing that continuity of that relationship is vital to the welfare of children. Yet those protections are meaningless when the judiciary—the branch charged with enforcing them—disregards or refuses to apply them. This complaint is about ensuring that those legislative and constitutional promises are kept: protecting families, protecting children, and vindicating the most fundamental right a person can hold—the right to family itself.”
⚖️ Looking Ahead
Whether this court reconsiders or the question moves on to the appellate level, the outcome will echo far beyond my own case. This is about more than one family — it’s about restoring the right of every parent to speak the truth, to defend their children, and to seek justice when the system itself becomes the source of harm. That’s why this fight matters, and it’s why I’ll keep pushing until the courts finally protect those it was meant to serve.
🔁 Join the Fight for Reform
I have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging systemic misconduct by judges, attorneys, and state agencies that has stripped parents of their rights and traumatized countless children.
With 27 defendants, including the State of Minnesota, this case seeks accountability — and reform.
Join me in taking this mission national.
✅ How You Can Help
✅ Subscribe: Stay updated — Contact
✅ Visit: www.ryanalvar.com
✅ Support the Fight: GoFundMe – Help Cover Legal Costs & Reform Efforts
✅ Follow & Share: Real Dad Initiative
✅ Contact Your Legislators: Demand oversight for Judges, GALs and transparency in family court.
📬 Not sure who represents you? Find out here → 🔗 https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/iMaps/districts/
Across the country, I’ve heard from parents who’ve lost everything—some haven’t seen their children in years. When the system designed to protect families becomes the weapon that destroys them, it’s time for change. We must fix this broken family court system. Until that day, I’ll keep fighting—for our children, for truth, and for justice.
"476 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over."
Ryan William Alvar
Parent and Plaintiff
Comments