Rindahl v. United States Attorney's Office for Minnesota

Background

Randy Lee Rindahl filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus—a court order directing a federal officer or agency employee to perform a duty. He sought to compel the United States Attorney’s Office for Minnesota to investigate and prosecute an employee of the South Dakota Department of Corrections for allegedly threatening a federal judge. Rindahl did not pay the filing fee and instead applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.

The court previously denied that application under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” rule. That rule generally prevents a prisoner who has had three or more qualifying cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim from proceeding without paying the filing fee, unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court had found that Rindahl had at least five qualifying strikes and ordered him to pay the full $400 filing fee by December 22, 2018, or face a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Motion to Vacate or Reconsider

Rindahl moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to vacate or reconsider the earlier order. He argued that his mandamus petition was not a “civil action” under the three-strikes rule and that the court had mischaracterized it as a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed an affidavit asserting that he faced danger because the South Dakota Department of Corrections had allegedly labeled him a Ku Klux Klan member and placed him in a double cell with inmates he claimed had gang ties.

The court denied reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is extraordinary relief requiring exceptional or compelling circumstances, such as a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence. The court noted that, although the docket heading described the case as a § 1983 action, the earlier order had treated it as a mandamus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Thus, the court found no error based on the docket description.

The court also held that a § 1361 mandamus petition is a civil action covered by the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. It distinguished such an original mandamus action from some mandamus proceedings connected to criminal or habeas cases. The court further found that Rindahl had not shown exceptional or compelling circumstances for reconsidering either the application of the three-strikes rule or the earlier finding that he had accumulated at least five strikes.

The court rejected Rindahl’s imminent-danger argument because he alleged that he had shared cells with the inmates but did not allege that they had actually injured him. It characterized the alleged danger as speculative and found that Rindahl had not adequately alleged imminent danger of serious physical harm. The court also noted that he had not obtained the required permission before filing his reconsideration motion under the District of Minnesota’s local rules.

Motion to Appoint Counsel and Disposition

Rindahl separately asked the court to appoint counsel. The court denied that request, finding it premature because he had not paid the filing fee and concluding that neither the facts nor the legal issues were sufficiently complex to warrant appointed counsel. The court also found that Rindahl had demonstrated an ability to explain his claims and communicate effectively with the court.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that Rindahl’s motion to vacate or reconsider be DENIED and that his motion to appoint counsel be DENIED. The court ordered Rindahl to pay the full $400 filing fee by February 15, 2019. If he failed to do so, the court stated that it would recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.