Braun v. MNDOC
Nathan C. Braun v. MNDOC; Commissioner of Corrections; MCF-Rush City Warden; MCF Rush City Grievance Coordinator; MCF-Stillwater Warden; MCF-Stillwater Grievance Authority; and Crystal Brakke, MNDOC Deputy Commissioner
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:26-cv-02244
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Nathan C. Braun v. MNDOC, Magistrate Judge Elkins denied fee-waiver status because three qualifying dismissals applied and gave Braun 14 days to pay the filing fee.
Nathan C. Braun must pay the $405 filing fee within 14 days to continue the action without IFP status. The order does not decide the merits of Braun’s claims against the defendants.
What happened
Nathan C. Braun v. MNDOC concerns Braun’s claim that Minnesota corrections officials violated his constitutional rights by temporarily restricting his ability to file emergency grievances. Braun asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court determined that three of Braun’s earlier cases counted as qualifying dismissals under the federal three-strikes rule. Because his complaint did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury, the exception to that rule did not apply.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins denied Braun’s application to proceed without paying the fee. The order gave Braun 14 days to pay the $405 filing fee; otherwise, the court said it would recommend dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Braun v. MNDOC · No. 0:26-cv-02244
- Shannon G. Elkins
- May 8, 2026
Background
Nathan C. Braun, identified in the order as a Minnesota state prisoner, filed a one-page complaint against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and its officials. He alleged that they violated his constitutional rights by temporarily restricting him from filing emergency grievances after determining that he had filed too many frivolous or duplicative grievances.
Braun applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the filing fee when the case begins. The order addresses only that application, not whether Braun’s constitutional claims are valid.
Three-strikes rule
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally cannot proceed IFP after three prior actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. An exception applies if the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court determined that three of Braun’s earlier dismissals counted as strikes:
- An earlier case involving challenges to the validity of his sentence was dismissed and expressly labeled frivolous. The order states that dismissals under the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey count as strikes and cites an Eighth Circuit decision reaching that conclusion.
- An earlier case seeking relief from a prison official was dismissed as frivolous because it duplicated another case.
- An earlier case concerning revocation of Braun’s intensive supervised release was dismissed for failure to state a claim or on frivolity grounds. The court stated that a later amended dismissal order confirmed that the dismissal qualified as a strike.
The court concluded that Braun had three strikes both when he filed this action and when he applied for IFP status. It also concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied Braun’s IFP application under § 1915(g). It ordered Braun to pay the $405 filing fee within 14 days of the order’s date. If he pays, the complaint will remain subject to the court’s required initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If he does not pay, the order states that dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute will be recommended; the order itself did not dismiss the case on that ground.
The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.