Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0510

Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Charles Matthew Waters,
Appellant.

Filed January 7, 2019
Reversed
Randall, Judge*

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CV-18-410

Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Charles Matthew Waters, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Randall,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RANDALL, Judge
Pro se appellant argues that the district court erred in granting respondent’s request
for a harassment restraining order (HRO). Appellant argues that his conduct did not meet
the statutory definition of harassment, that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and
that the district court was biased against him. Respondent did not file a brief on appeal.
We reverse.
FACTS
On January 13, 2018, appellant Charles Matthew Waters entered a liquor store
shortly before closing time. Respondent Jacqueline Marie Thibodeaux, an employee of the
store, greeted appellant by exclaiming that he had nine minutes left and pointing in his
direction. Although this was respondent’s normal practice near closing time , appellant,
who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), was taken aback. After some back
and forth, respondent told the c ashier not to sell to appellant and asked him to leave the
store. At this point, appellant began to record their exchange on h is cell phone . As
appellant recorded respondent, she stated her name and encouraged anyone viewing the
video to “follow [her],” apparently referring to social media.
Appellant later uploaded the vi deo of their interaction to YouT ube and tagged
respondent’s last name, “Thibodeaux.”1 The YouTube page allows comments, and one of

1 The district court viewed the YouTube video, but it was not submitted as an exhibit and
is not part of the appellate record. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed
in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute
the record on appeal in all cases. ”). The district court indicated that the court of appeals

3
respondent’s friends posted a comment criticizing appellant. Appellant and respondent’s
friend commented back and forth. In one of appellant’s comments, he referenced a three-
year old incident from respondent’s F acebook page. Respondent then filed a petition for
an HRO. Following a contested hearing, t he district court found that appellant’s actions
constituted harassment and granted respondent’s request for an HRO. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
A district court may grant an HRO if “the court finds . . . that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748,
subd. 5(b)(3) (2018). Harassment includes “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted
acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a
substantial adverse effect on the safety, s ecurity, or privacy of another .” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (20 18). This court reviews a district court ’s grant of a n HRO
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Peterson v. Johnson, 755 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.
App. 2008) . “A district court ’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility
of witnesses.” Kush v. Mathison , 683 N.W.2d 841, 843 -44 (Minn. App. 2004), review
denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004). “But this court will reverse the issuance of a restraining
order if it is not supported by sufficient evidence.” Id. at 844.
Here, the district court stated on the record its findings that appellant posting the
video to YouT ube and engaging with respondent’s friend on YouT ube constituted

could view the video o n YouTube, but it is not possible to verify that th e video currently
posted on YouTube is identical to the video viewed by the district court.

4
“repeated contacts” “of unwanted, intrusiv e acts, words, or gestures. ” Appellant argues
that posting the video was not an intrusive or unwanted act. We agree.
As appellant filmed respondent, respondent stated her name and invited those
viewing the video to “follow [her].” T his clearly shows that appellant posting the video
was not an intrusive or unwanted act. To the contrary, it shows that respondent wanted the
video to be publicized and encouraged any accompanying notoriety. Apparently,
respondent later had a change of heart. Respondent’s change of heart does not retroactively
make posting the video an intrusive or unwanted act.
The district court found only one other intrusive or unwanted act, namely appellant’s
online interaction with respondent’s friend. We note that Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd.
1(a)(1) requires “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts .” The record does not
contain evidence of “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts .” There is
insufficient evidence to support the issuance of the HRO. Accordingly, we vacate the
HRO.2
Reversed.

2 Because we reverse on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the
issuance of an HRO, we do not reach appellant’s other arguments.