Wattleton v. Turner
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-03936
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Wattleton v. Turner, Judge Tostrud dismissed Wattleton’s complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the election dispute was moot.
David Earl Wattleton’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. His application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and his motion to submit evidence were denied as moot.
What happened
Wattleton v. Turner involved David Earl Wattleton’s complaint against Luke Turner, identified as the Olmstead County Election Commissioner. The complaint concerned the possibility that Wattleton might be denied an absentee ballot in future elections.
The court found no facts showing a reasonable expectation that Wattleton would face the same issue again, and the complaint requested no damages. No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation to dismiss the case without prejudice, but did so because the case was moot and the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot Wattleton’s fee-waiver application and motion to submit evidence.
The detailed version
- Wattleton v. Turner · No. 0:24-cv-03936
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
David Earl Wattleton sued Luke Turner, identified in the caption as the Olmstead County Election Commissioner. The order states that Wattleton’s complaint alleged he might be deprived of an absentee ballot in future elections. The complaint did not seek damages, including nominal damages.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on December 5, 2024, recommending dismissal without prejudice. No party objected, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Court’s Analysis
The court accepted the recommendation to dismiss, but on mootness grounds. Mootness means that the court no longer has a live dispute to decide. The court concluded that the complaint alleged no facts plausibly showing that Wattleton would be subject to the same absentee-ballot issue in future elections. The court also noted that the complaint sought no damages that could keep the dispute live.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation to the extent it recommended dismissal without prejudice. It dismissed Wattleton’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied as moot Wattleton’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and his Motion for Leave to Submit Evidence. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.