Day v. Ellison
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-03826
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Day v. Ellison, Judge Magnuson denied Day’s request for more time and refused settlement referral, while the provided order’s final text is incomplete.
Roger Jerome Day, M.D., whose requests for more time and settlement-program referral were denied; the defendants are Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin, sued in their personal and official capacities.
What happened
In Day v. Ellison, Roger Jerome Day, M.D., asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ request to dismiss his lawsuit. He also asked for referral to an early settlement program and requested action concerning a Minnesota physician-license matter.
Day said he had a disability affecting his ability to prepare documents and meet deadlines. The court found that he provided no further information supporting that assertion and declined to research other lawsuits for evidence. The court also noted that Day had responded quickly to an earlier order dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute.
Judge Paul Magnuson denied Day’s request for more time and declined to refer the matter to the early settlement program. The provided opinion ends before the complete final order is shown, so it is unclear whether the request concerning the physician-license matter received a separate ruling.
The detailed version
- Day v. Ellison · No. 0:23-cv-03826
- Paul Magnuson
- July 31, 2024
Background
Roger Jerome Day, M.D., proceeded without a lawyer and filed a motion seeking permission to submit a late memorandum opposing the defendants’ request to dismiss the lawsuit. He also asked the court to refer the matter to the Early Settlement Conference Project and to “strike down/vacate/injunctively-rescind” a public action concerning Minnesota Physician License #33984.
Day asserted that he had a “profound litigation-affecting disability” that interfered with his ability to prepare detailed documents and meet filing deadlines. The opinion states that he provided no further information about the alleged disability. The court also noted that Day had responded quickly to an earlier order dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that it would not independently research prior lawsuits to look for support for Day’s disability assertion. It also explained that a person representing himself must still comply with the District of Minnesota’s local rules and the federal civil-procedure rules. The court concluded that an extension was not warranted.
Ruling
The court denied Day’s motion for more time to file a response to the defendants’ request for dismissal. It also declined to refer the matter to the Early Settlement Conference Project. The provided opinion text ends after the beginning of the final order, so it does not clearly show whether the court separately ruled on Day’s request concerning the physician-license action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.