Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2026

Larson v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility

Full caption

Richard A. Larson, Jr. v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility, including the Psych Unit; Dakota County Sheriff’s Office; City of West St. Paul; West St. Paul Police Department; Officer Swanson; Erickson; Deputy Hood; John/Jane Does 1-10; and John/Jane Does 11-21

Judge
Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Docket
0:26-cv-02085
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Larson v. Dakota County Jail, Judge Wright recommended dismissing the action without prejudice because Larson failed to prosecute.

Who this affects

The recommendation affected Richard A. Larson, Jr.’s federal action and his application to proceed without paying filing fees. It did not decide the underlying claims against the named or unnamed defendants.

What happened

Richard A. Larson, Jr. sued several Dakota County and West St. Paul entities, officers, and unnamed defendants. The case is Richard A. Larson, Jr. v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility, including the Psych Unit, et al.

The court had ordered Larson to file an amended complaint by May 12, 2026, including changes required by the rules governing which claims and parties could be joined. Larson did not file the amended complaint or communicate with the court after starting the case.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying Larson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. The recommendation was not a final order, and the notice allowed objections within 14 days.

The detailed version

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

Case
Larson v. Dakota County Jail/Detention Facility · No. 0:26-cv-02085
Judge
Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Date
May 20, 2026

Background

On April 21, 2026, the court ordered Plaintiff Richard A. Larson, Jr. to file an amended complaint. Among other requirements, the amended complaint had to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the joining of claims and parties. The court gave Larson 21 days—until May 12, 2026—to file it and stated that failure to do so would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

The deadline passed without Larson filing an amended complaint. The opinion also states that Larson had not communicated with the court about the case since beginning the action.

Recommendation and Disposition

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation did not state that refiling was barred. The judge also recommended denying Larson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, meaning the application no longer required a ruling because of the recommended dismissal.

This document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.

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.