Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-03996
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Turner v. State of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge Elkins recommends dismissing Marvin James Turner's federal court petition because he never paid the filing fee or applied for a fee waiver.
Individuals who file federal habeas corpus petitions and fail to pay the required filing fee or apply for a fee waiver after being warned by the court. This outcome illustrates the consequences of not responding to court-issued deficiency notices within the stated deadline.
What happened
This case, Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay (No. 25-cv-3996), involves a petition filed by Marvin James Turner asking a federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus — a legal order challenging his custody or detention — under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2241). After Turner filed his petition, the court's clerk sent him a letter in October 2025 warning that he had not paid the required filing fee and had not applied for permission to proceed without paying the fee (known as an in forma pauperis application). The letter gave him 15 days to fix the problem or risk having his case dismissed.
Turner did not respond by the November 1, 2025 deadline. He did not pay the fee, and he did not file a fee-waiver application. Because of this failure to take any action to move his case forward, the court found grounds to recommend dismissal under a federal procedural rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)) that allows courts to dismiss cases when a party fails to prosecute — meaning fails to take the steps necessary to keep their case moving.
United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins issued this Report and Recommendation on November 17, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed and Turner's petition be denied. Because this is only a recommendation from a magistrate judge — not a final order from the district court judge — Turner has 14 days after receiving this document to file written objections if he disagrees. The report is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at this stage.
The detailed version
- Turner v. State of Minnesota and County of Clay · No. 0:25-cv-03996
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
Petitioner Marvin James Turner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, naming the State of Minnesota and the County of Clay as respondents. A § 2241 habeas petition is a mechanism by which a person in custody can challenge the lawfulness of their detention in federal court.
Procedural History
After Turner filed his petition, the court never received a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to litigate without prepaying fees due to financial hardship. On October 17, 2025, the Clerk of Court sent Turner a letter notifying him of this deficiency and giving him 15 days — until November 1, 2025 — to either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application. The letter warned that failure to comply could result in summary dismissal without prejudice. Turner did not respond by the deadline and, as of the date of this Report and Recommendation, had not submitted either the fee or an IFP application.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff or petitioner fails to prosecute the case or fails to comply with court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that such dismissal is within the court's discretion.
Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommends: (1) that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute; and (2) that Turner's § 2241 habeas petition (Dkt. 1) be denied.
Procedural Posture and Next Steps
This document is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, not a final order from the district court judge assigned to the case. It is therefore not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals at this stage. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), any party may file written objections within 14 days of being served with the Report and Recommendation, and any opposing party may respond to those objections within 14 days. The objections and responses must comply with the word and line limits in Local Rule 72.2(c). The district court judge will then review the recommendation, taking into account any timely objections, before issuing a final ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.