Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2019

Wilson v. Schnell

Judge
Susan Nelson
Docket
0:18-cv-01985
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wilson v. Schnell, Magistrate Judge Thorson granted record expansion and a reply, denied counsel, and denied fee waiver without prejudice.

Who this affects

Michelle Rae Wilson, whose requests to expand the record and file a reply were granted, whose request for appointed counsel was denied, and whose fee application was denied without prejudice.

What happened

In Wilson v. Schnell, the petitioner asked to expand the record, file a reply, and receive appointed counsel in her case under the federal law governing certain state-court custody challenges. She also asked to continue without paying court fees.

The court granted permission to file a reply and to submit additional documents expanding the record. It denied appointed counsel because the issues were not complex and the petitioner had been able to explain her claims. The court also denied the fee application without prejudice because she had already paid the filing fee and had no applicable continuing fees to pay.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson ordered that the reply and additional supporting documents be filed within 30 days. The order granted the combined motion in part and denied it in part.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wilson v. Schnell · No. 0:18-cv-01985
Judge
Susan Nelson
Date
Feb. 6, 2019

Background

Michelle Rae Wilson filed a motion asking for three forms of relief: permission to expand the record, permission to file a reply, and appointment of counsel. The case is identified in the supplied case information as Wilson v. Schnell, while the opinion's caption identifies Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections, as the respondent. Wilson also filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs.

Rulings on the motion

The court granted Wilson permission to file a reply, noting that its initial order had directed a response and had allowed for a reply. The court also granted permission to expand the record under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The court ordered that the reply and any additional documents supporting the petition be filed within 30 days of the order.

The court denied Wilson's request for appointed counsel. It concluded that the issues were not complex and that Wilson had so far been able to articulate her claims.

The order therefore states that the motion to expand the record, appoint counsel, and file a reply was granted in part and denied in part: the requests to expand the record and file a reply were granted, and the request to appoint counsel was denied.

Fee application

The court denied Wilson's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs without prejudice. The court explained that Wilson had already paid the $5 filing fee and that, from the court's perspective, she had no applicable fees left to pay to continue pursuing the action.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson entered the order on February 6, 2019. The order did not resolve the underlying petition; it addressed record expansion, a reply, appointed counsel, and court fees.

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.