LaBelle v. Warden MCF Rush City
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-00160
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In LaBelle v. Warden MCF-Rush City, Judge Docherty recommended dismissing LaBelle’s habeas case without prejudice because he did not pay the fee or request a fee waiver.
The recommendation affects Jordan K. LaBelle’s petition and the Warden MCF-Rush City case, but it does not decide whether LaBelle is entitled to relief from the state-court judgment.
What happened
Jordan K. LaBelle asked the federal court to provide relief from a state-court judgment. The court’s clerk told him that he needed to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it, but he did neither.
The deadline passed, and LaBelle did not contact the court about the case. The court therefore recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to pursue it. The recommendation did not address whether LaBelle was entitled to relief from the state-court judgment.
Judge John F. Docherty issued the recommendation on February 13, 2025. He stated that the recommendation was not a final order or directly appealable judgment and that the parties could file written objections within the stated deadline.
The detailed version
- LaBelle v. Warden MCF Rush City · No. 0:25-cv-00160
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
Jordan K. LaBelle filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from a state-court judgment. He did not pay the filing fee and did not submit an application to proceed without paying the fee, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Clerk’s Office sent LaBelle a letter stating that the case could be dismissed if the court did not receive the filing fee or the application within 15 days of January 29, 2025. The letter was not returned as undeliverable. After the deadline passed, LaBelle had neither paid the fee nor submitted the application, and he had not otherwise communicated with the court since filing the case.
Recommendation and Reasoning
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a party fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or a court order. Because LaBelle did not pay the filing fee, submit the required application, or communicate with the court after receiving the warning, the court recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The court did not decide the substance of LaBelle’s challenge to the state-court judgment. It recommended dismissal without prejudice, meaning the recommendation did not bar refiling based on the terms stated in the opinion.
Disposition and Objections
Judge John F. Docherty recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The document was a report and recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It stated that objections could be filed within 14 days after service, with a response to objections permitted within the following 14 days.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.