Griffin v. Erickson
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-02807
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Griffin v. Erickson, Chief Judge Tostrud dismissed Bryant Duane Griffin's lawsuit without prejudice after accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation finding no clear error.
Prisoners and pro se (self-represented) litigants who file civil suits in federal court, particularly those subject to the federal prisoner filing-fee payment rules even after dismissal.
What happened
In Griffin v. Erickson, Lisa Kirkpatric, and United States (No. 25-cv-2807), Bryant Duane Griffin, a prisoner held at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Joan Erickson, Lisa Kirkpatric, and the United States. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims Griffin raised.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on July 23, 2026, recommending dismissal of the case. No party filed any objections to that recommendation, so the district court reviewed it only for clear error — a relatively low bar that asks whether the magistrate judge made an obvious mistake.
Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Griffin may potentially refile. His request to proceed without paying court fees up front was denied as moot (no longer relevant given the dismissal). However, the court separately directed the institution holding Griffin to collect and send in monthly payments toward the filing fee under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), which requires prisoners to pay filing fees over time even when a case is dismissed.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Erickson · No. 0:25-cv-02807
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Bryant Duane Griffin, currently housed at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, filed this civil action in the District of Minnesota against defendants Joan Erickson, Lisa Kirkpatric, and the United States. The opinion does not describe the substance of Griffin's claims.
Griffin also filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs — commonly known as a fee-waiver application — under the federal prisoner litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 23, 2026, recommending disposition of the case. The opinion does not reproduce the R&R's reasoning. No party filed objections to the R&R within the applicable period.
Standard of Review
Because no party objected to the R&R, Chief Judge Tostrud reviewed it only for clear error, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). Clear-error review is more deferential than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when a party timely objects.
Rulings
Finding no clear error, Chief Judge Tostrud issued four directives:
- R&R Accepted: The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) was accepted in full.
- Case Dismissed Without Prejudice: The action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Griffin retains the ability to refile if he can cure any deficiencies identified in the R&R (the specific deficiencies are not described in this order).
- Fee-Waiver Application Denied as Moot: Griffin's application to proceed without prepaying fees (ECF No. 2) was denied as moot — i.e., because the case was dismissed, the application no longer serves any purpose in this proceeding.
- Filing Fee Payment Directed: Despite the dismissal, the court directed the institution holding Griffin to collect and remit monthly payments toward the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Under that statute, prisoner plaintiffs who initially cannot pay a filing fee in full must pay it in installments from their prison account, even if the case is ultimately dismissed.
Reviewer Notes
The order does not describe the legal basis for dismissal or the content of the R&R's reasoning. The underlying claims, causes of action, and why dismissal without prejudice was recommended are not disclosed in the order itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.