Grande v. State of MN
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-02904
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Grande v. State of MN, Judge Tostrud dismissed Grande’s complaint without prejudice after screening, allowed 30 days to amend, and denied pending motions as moot.
Patrick Ryan Grande’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, while the named defendants were not subject to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
Grande v. State of MN involved Patrick Ryan Grande’s complaint against the State of Minnesota and several named defendants. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s allegations or the specific defect identified in it.
The court accepted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after finding no clear error. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), giving Grande until February 8, 2019, to file an amended complaint. The court also directed him to file a new application to proceed without paying filing fees if he amended the complaint.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Grande’s pending application to proceed without paying filing fees and two motions as moot. The clerk was directed to provide Grande with a standard habeas petition.
The detailed version
- Grande v. State of MN · No. 0:18-cv-02904
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 9, 2019
Background
Patrick Ryan Grande brought a complaint against the State of Minnesota and the other defendants listed in the caption. The opinion does not state the complaint’s factual allegations or identify the precise pleading problem.
Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez issued a report and recommendation on December 14, 2018. No party objected. Judge Eric C. Tostrud therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Ruling
The court accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed Grande’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), allowing him to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order, or by February 8, 2019. The order warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
If Grande filed an amended complaint, the court directed him to submit a new application to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk’s office was also directed to provide him with a standard habeas corpus petition.
The court denied as moot Grande’s pending application to proceed without paying filing fees, his motion to set Patrick Ryan Grande free, and his motion to alter, amend, or supplement the pleadings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.