Yang v. Minnesota Department of Corrections - Stillwater
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00542
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Yang v. Minnesota Department of Corrections–Stillwater, Judge Bryan dismissed Yang’s action without prejudice and denied his fee-waiver application as moot after finding no clear error.
Mitchell Yang’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied as moot. The named defendants were Minnesota Department of Corrections—Stillwater, Medical Department; Minnesota Department of Corrections—Commissioner of Corrections; and St. Paul Regions Hospital.
What happened
In Yang v. Minnesota Department of Corrections–Stillwater, Mitchell Yang brought an action against the Minnesota Department of Corrections—Stillwater Medical Department, the Minnesota Department of Corrections Commissioner of Corrections, and St. Paul Regions Hospital. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal because the court might lack authority to hear the claims or because the complaint did not state a viable claim for relief.
Yang did not object to the recommendation before the deadline. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none. The opinion does not describe the specific claims in Yang’s complaint or explain which possible ground applied to each claim.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action under the cited statute and rule without prejudice. The court also denied Yang’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot.
The detailed version
- Yang v. Minnesota Department of Corrections - Stillwater · No. 0:25-cv-00542
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
The court considered a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz on March 24, 2025. The recommendation addressed Mitchell Yang’s complaint against the Minnesota Department of Corrections—Stillwater, Medical Department; the Minnesota Department of Corrections—Commissioner of Corrections; and St. Paul Regions Hospital.
The recommendation proposed dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It stated that the court either lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—legal authority to hear the claims—or that Yang failed to state a viable claim for relief. The opinion does not identify the specific claims or state which of those grounds applied to any particular claim.
Review of the Recommendation
Yang did not object to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for objections had passed. Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) without prejudice. The court also denied Yang’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered.
Meaning of the Disposition
This was a procedural dismissal based on the court’s stated jurisdictional or pleading grounds, rather than a decision resolving the underlying claims. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice, the order did not bar refiling on that basis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.