Raper v. MN. DOC OPH
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02675
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Raper v. MN DOC OPH, Judge Menendez dismissed plaintiff Jeremiah Christopher Raper's lawsuit without prejudice for failing to pay a required partial filing fee or contact the court.
Prisoners or other incarcerated individuals who file federal civil lawsuits and are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement to pay an initial partial filing fee, particularly those who may fail to respond to court orders requiring payment or other action.
What happened
In Raper v. MN DOC OPH (No. 25-cv-2675), plaintiff Jeremiah Christopher Raper, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Minnesota on June 25, 2025, along with an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because his case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act — a federal law requiring prisoners to pay court filing fees, even if only gradually — a magistrate judge ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $18.60 within 21 days. The order warned that failing to pay on time would result in the case being treated as abandoned and recommended for dismissal.
Mr. Raper neither paid the fee nor contacted the court by the July 18, 2025 deadline. On July 28, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation — a formal proposal to the presiding judge — recommending the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning the plaintiff had stopped moving his own case forward. Mr. Raper took no action in response to that recommendation either.
Judge Katherine Menendez adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice means Mr. Raper is not permanently barred from refiling; however, any new case would need to comply with applicable court rules, including fee requirements.
The detailed version
- Raper v. MN. DOC OPH · No. 0:25-cv-02675
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
On June 25, 2025, plaintiff Jeremiah Christopher Raper filed a complaint against MN DOC OPH (Minnesota Department of Corrections) and others, along with an Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs (commonly called an in forma pauperis application, which allows a litigant to seek to proceed without paying fees upfront). Because Mr. Raper is a prisoner, his case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), which requires prisoners to pay the full filing fee even if they cannot pay it all at once — beginning with an initial partial filing fee based on the prisoner's account balance.
The Magistrate Judge's Order and R&R
U.S. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz reviewed the application and ordered Mr. Raper to pay an initial partial filing fee of $18.60 within 21 days, making the deadline July 18, 2025. The order expressly warned that failure to pay on time would cause the court to consider the action abandoned and recommend dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Mr. Raper neither paid the fee nor contacted the court before or after the deadline. On July 28, 2025, Judge Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a formal proposed ruling submitted to the district judge for adoption — recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. As of the date of the district court's order, Mr. Raper had still not paid the fee or communicated with the court.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits dismissal of an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with court rules or orders. Courts have discretion to invoke this rule. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that district courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
Ruling
Judge Menendez adopted the magistrate judge's R&R in full and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling, but any future action would be subject to all applicable procedural and statutory requirements, including PLRA fee obligations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.