Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2026

Branson v. Lane

Judge
Donovan Frank
Docket
0:26-cv-00723
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Kelly Branson v. Mission Lane, Judge Frank summarily dismissed Branson’s complaint as frivolous and certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.

Who this affects

The order dismissed Kelly Branson’s action against Mission Lane and certified that an appeal from the dismissal could not be taken in good faith.

What happened

Kelly Branson sued Mission Lane, claiming that Mission Lane owed $1 million to the Kelly Branson Revocable Living Trust. The court noted that Branson had recently filed ten substantively identical lawsuits against separate lending companies in the District of Minnesota.

After reviewing the complaint and related documents, the court found no arguable factual or legal basis for Branson’s requested relief. The court therefore determined that the action was frivolous.

Judge Donovan W. Frank summarily dismissed the case as frivolous and entered judgment. He also certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith; the order did not separately state a disposition of any request for fee-free appeal status.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Branson v. Lane · No. 0:26-cv-00723
Judge
Donovan Frank
Date
Jan. 29, 2026

Background

Kelly Branson initiated this action against Mission Lane. The court stated that Branson had recently filed ten substantively identical lawsuits against ten separate lending companies in the District of Minnesota. Each lawsuit allegedly claimed that the defendant owed $1 million to an entity called the “Kelly Branson Revocable Living Trust.”

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a federal district court may dismiss an action on its own if the action is frivolous. After reviewing Branson’s complaint and accompanying documents, the court found that the pleading did not articulate any arguable basis in fact or law for the requested relief.

Ruling

The court summarily dismissed this action as frivolous. It also certified that an appeal could not be taken from the dismissal in good faith. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.