Day v. Ellison
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:23-cv-03826
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Day v. Ellison, Judge Magnuson denied Roger Jerome Day’s request for more time and said the case would not be referred to settlement.
Roger Jerome Day, who represented himself, and defendants Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin, in their personal and official capacities.
What happened
In Day v. Ellison, Roger Jerome Day asked for extra time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He also asked the court to refer the case to a settlement program and to cancel or otherwise stop a 2005 action concerning his Minnesota physician license.
Day, who represented himself, said that a serious disability affected his ability to prepare documents and meet filing deadlines. The court found that he provided no additional information supporting that claim and refused to research earlier lawsuits for possible evidence. The court also noted that Day had quickly responded to an earlier order dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied Day’s motion for permission to file a late opposition memorandum. The judge also stated that the court would not refer the matter to the Early Settlement Conference Project.
The detailed version
- Day v. Ellison · No. 0:23-cv-03826
- Paul Magnuson
- July 31, 2024
Background
Roger Jerome Day sued Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Dan Ganin in their personal and official capacities. The court was considering Day’s motion for permission to file a late memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Day requested additional time to respond. He said that he had a “profound litigation-affecting disability” that made it difficult for him to prepare detailed documents and meet written filing deadlines. He also asked the court to refer the case to the Early Settlement Conference Project and to “strike down/vacate/injunctively-rescind” a 2005 public action concerning Minnesota physician license number 33984.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that Day provided no further information about the claimed disability. It refused to independently research earlier lawsuits to look for evidence supporting his assertion. The court also noted that Day had responded quickly to an earlier order dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute, which the court viewed as inconsistent with his claim that a disability prevented him from filing a timely response.
The court explained that representing oneself does not excuse compliance with the District of Minnesota’s local rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It found that an extension was not warranted and stated that it would not grant the request for referral to the settlement program.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Day’s Motion for Leave to File Late Memorandum in Opposition, Docket No. 19, was DENIED. The order did not separately decide the merits of Day’s challenge to the 2005 action concerning his physician license.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.