Braun v. Vierzba

Background

Nathan C. Braun, who is completing a sentence for a state criminal sexual-conduct conviction, sued Christopher Vierzba, identified as Braun’s conditional release officer. Braun alleged that he and Vierzba made what Braun called a legally binding contract: if Braun passed a polygraph test, Vierzba would allow Braun to contact his minor daughter and help overturn Braun’s criminal conviction. Braun alleged that he passed the test, but Vierzba did not perform his part of the alleged agreement and instead issued a warrant alleging that Braun violated his conditional release.

Braun had filed an earlier case against Vierzba less than a week before filing this action. The court stated that the two complaints contained substantially the same allegations, claims for relief, and descriptions of the alleged agreement, its alleged breach, and Braun’s resulting injuries.

Filing-fee and screening issues

Braun did not pay the filing fee and requested permission to proceed without paying it immediately. His application was incomplete: he submitted a sworn statement that he lacked funds for an initial partial filing fee and a blank December 2025 trust-account statement. The court nevertheless concluded that he could proceed without first paying an initial partial fee because federal law says a prisoner cannot be prevented from filing solely because he lacks assets and the means to pay that initial amount.

The court cautioned that Braun would still have to pay the remaining $350 statutory filing fee in installments, regardless of the case’s outcome. The court conducted the required preliminary review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis and that repetitive lawsuits may be dismissed as frivolous.

Analysis and recommendation

The court concluded that this case duplicated the earlier case. It found that Braun had filed essentially the same civil complaint twice only a few days apart and that the earlier case was sufficient vehicle for any relief to which Braun might be entitled. Because the earlier case was filed first, the court recommended dismissing this proceeding without prejudice as duplicative and therefore frivolous. It expressly stated that dismissal of this action would not affect the disposition of the earlier case.

The report and recommendation proposed three dispositions: dismissal of Braun’s complaint without prejudice under § 1915A(b)(1); denial of Braun’s application to proceed without paying the fee immediately as moot; and payment of the unpaid $350 filing-fee balance through withdrawals from the trust account at the institution where Braun is confined. The document was not a final order or judgment. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served, and that the report could not be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals before district-court action on the recommendation.