Myers v. Itasca County HRA
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-01395
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Myers v. Itasca County HRA, Judge Tunheim denied Myers’s request for more discovery before ruling on defendants’ motion for judgment without a trial.
Tricia Marie Myers, who was denied additional time for discovery and given 21 days to respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the defendants’ summary-judgment motion remained pending according to the order.
What happened
In Myers v. Itasca County HRA, Tricia Marie Myers, representing herself, sued the housing authority and three employees over the termination of her Section 8 housing vouchers. She alleged violations of her rights to fair procedures and equal protection.
Myers asked for more time to depose seven witnesses and obtain internal records before responding to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court found that she had several months to conduct discovery, that the discovery deadline had already passed, and that she did not explain how the requested information would help her oppose the motion.
The court denied Myers’s motion for additional time to conduct discovery and gave her 21 days to file and serve her response to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. Judge John R. Tunheim also warned that presenting apparently fabricated legal citations in the future could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Myers v. Itasca County HRA · No. 0:24-cv-01395
- John Tunheim
- July 15, 2025
Background
Tricia Marie Myers sued the Itasca County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Diane Larson, Carrie Schmitz, and Kenda Roddenberg. The opinion states that Myers sued the employees in both their official and individual capacities. She alleged that the defendants violated her due-process and equal-protection rights by terminating her Section 8 housing vouchers.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over important facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Myers, who was representing herself, asked for additional time to conduct what she described as limited but essential discovery. She sought to depose seven witnesses and obtain broad categories of internal records.
Rule and Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a party opposing summary judgment may ask for additional discovery by showing, through an affidavit or declaration, specific facts the discovery is expected to produce, that those facts exist, and that they are essential to opposing summary judgment. The court has broad discretion when deciding such a request.
The court found that Myers had not shown that additional time was necessary. It noted that she had several months to obtain discovery and that fact discovery had closed several months earlier. The court also found that Myers provided no information explaining how the additional facts she sought could help her prevail against the summary-judgment motion.
The court further observed that several citations in Myers’s motion appeared to be fabricated. It warned that future similar conduct could result in sanctions, despite Myers’s self-represented status.
Disposition
The court denied Myers’s Motion for Additional Time to Conduct Discovery. It ordered Myers to file and serve her response to the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment within 21 days after the order’s issuance. Judge John R. Tunheim’s order did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion itself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.