Guevara v. Hull
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-01501
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Guevara v. Hull, Judge Blackwell dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice under the federal prisoner screening statute, finding no clear error in Magistrate Judge Brisbois's recommendation.
Prisoners who file civil complaints in federal court, particularly those whose cases are screened and dismissed under the federal prisoner litigation screening statute before reaching the merits, and who may still owe filing fees despite dismissal.
What happened
In Guevara v. Hull (No. 26-1501), Peter Michael Guevara, a prisoner, filed an amended complaint against Andrew Hull, Ph.D. A magistrate judge reviewed the case and issued a report recommending dismissal under the federal law that requires courts to screen lawsuits filed by prisoners before allowing them to proceed.
Guevar filed no objections to the magistrate judge's report within the allowed time. Under that circumstance, the court needed only to check whether the report contained obvious legal errors — a standard known as 'clear error' review. Finding none, the court accepted the report's recommendation.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell dismissed Guevara's amended complaint without prejudice — meaning Guevara is not permanently barred from refiling — under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), a statute allowing courts to dismiss prisoner complaints that fail to state a valid claim. Several other pending motions were denied as moot (meaning there was nothing left to decide on them). Guevara was also directed to pay the remaining $340.85 balance of the court's filing fee.
The detailed version
- Guevara v. Hull · No. 0:26-cv-01501
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Aug. 12, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Peter Michael Guevara, who is confined in a custodial facility, filed an amended complaint against defendant Andrew Hull, Ph.D. Because Guevara is a prisoner, his complaint was subject to mandatory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires federal courts to review prisoner civil complaints before service on defendants and to dismiss any complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, among other grounds.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 21, 2026, recommending dismissal of the amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The opinion does not describe the substantive basis for the magistrate judge's recommendation beyond citing that statute. No objections to the R&R were filed within the time permitted.
Standard of Review
When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews only for 'clear error.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Judge Blackwell found no clear error.
Rulings
Judge Blackwell issued the following orders:
1. Amended Complaint dismissed without prejudice. Guevara's amended complaint (Doc. No. 8) was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dismissal without prejudice means Guevara is not permanently barred from attempting to refile, subject to applicable procedural rules.
2. Application to proceed without paying filing fees denied as moot. Guevara's application to proceed in forma pauperis — that is, his request to proceed without prepaying court fees due to inability to pay (Doc. No. 2) — was denied as moot.
3. Motion regarding trust account statement denied as moot. Guevara's motion for an order directing his custodial facility to provide a certified inmate trust account statement (Doc. No. 3) was denied as moot.
4. Motion to update mailing address denied as moot. Guevara's motion to update his official mailing address (Doc. No. 7) was denied as moot.
5. Filing fee obligation. Despite the dismissal, Guevara was directed to pay the unpaid balance of $340.85 of the statutory filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Clerk of Court was directed to notify the authorities at Guevara's place of confinement of this requirement.
Notes on the Opinion
The order does not describe the underlying facts alleged in the complaint, the nature of Guevara's claims against Hull, or the specific reasons the magistrate judge recommended dismissal beyond the citation to § 1915A(b). The court's review was limited to the 'clear error' standard because no objections were filed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.