Terrell v. Conway
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-02691
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Terrell v. Conway, Judge Provinzino denied as moot a request to expedite a temporary restraining order motion because the case had not formally commenced.
The ruling directly affected Sasha Terrell’s request for expedited consideration of her emergency temporary restraining order motion. The court did not consider the requested emergency relief or decide the merits of her allegations.
What happened
In Terrell v. Conway, Sasha Terrell filed a complaint and an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and other relief. She alleged that the defendants threatened and harassed her, including by changing the security settings on a computer so she could be digitally monitored.
Terrell asked the court to handle that motion quickly. The court said it could not consider the motion because she had not paid the filing fee or submitted a completed application to proceed without paying it. The court therefore did not decide whether her allegations supported emergency relief.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied as moot Terrell’s request for expedited handling. The court gave Terrell until July 11, 2025, to pay the filing fee or submit a completed application; otherwise, the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Terrell v. Conway · No. 0:25-cv-02691
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 27, 2025
Background
Sasha Terrell filed a complaint against Alex Richard Conway, Philip Nash Behan, and Paul P. Sarratori on June 25, 2025. She asserted claims under various federal statutes. She also filed an “Emergency Motion for Search Warrant, Temporary Restraining Order, Evidence Preservation, Forensic Collection, and Immediate Federal Intervention.” The motion sought several forms of relief, including evidence preservation, forensic analysis of electronic devices, and document production by defendants and several non-parties.
Terrell alleged that the defendants had threatened, intimidated, and harassed her, including by accessing a computer she owned and secretly changing its security settings so she could be digitally monitored. She also alleged that she and her minor children faced imminent danger.
Filing requirement
Terrell had not paid the filing fee for opening the case. Although she appeared to intend to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, the application attached to her complaint was incomplete. The Clerk of Court notified her that she had to pay the fee or file a completed application by July 11, 2025, or the complaint might be dismissed.
The court relied on District of Minnesota Local Rule 4.2 and stated that a lawsuit does not formally commence when a plaintiff files a complaint without either paying the filing fee or filing an application to proceed without paying it. The court therefore could not consider the emergency motion either on an expedited basis or in the ordinary course until the case formally commenced.
Ruling
The court expressly stated that it was not denying the emergency temporary restraining order motion on its merits. Instead, it issued notice that the motion would not be considered at that time. The court ordered that Terrell’s request for expedited handling of the emergency motion was DENIED as moot. It also ordered Terrell to pay the filing fee or file an application by July 11, 2025, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.