Peet v. Sidney
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:17-cv-01870
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Peet v. Smith, Judge Tostrud vacated an earlier order, overruled Peet’s objections, accepted the recommendation, and issued mixed rulings on dismissal and summary-judgment motions.
John E. Peet and the named defendants. The order dismissed several counts and portions of Count Four with prejudice, dismissed Counts Three and Four against Michele K. Smith and Lendine Darden without prejudice, left Count Four’s requested injunctive relief against Debbie Goettel and Michelle Luna subject to a denied dismissal motion, granted Mark Jones and Sue Morfit’s partial-dismissal motion, and denied Peet’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice.
What happened
In John E. Peet v. Michele K. Smith and others, Peet asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court found that his request was timely but that he had not shown a sufficient reason for more time.
The court treated parts of Peet’s request as objections because he was representing himself. It vacated an earlier order that had adopted the recommendation under a limited review standard, then reviewed the recommendation again under the required standard for timely objections. The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied Peet’s request for more time and overruled his objections. The court accepted the recommendation, granted or partly granted the defendants’ dismissal motions as specified in the order, and denied Peet’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Peet v. Sidney · No. 0:17-cv-01870
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 20, 2019
Background
John E. Peet, who was representing himself, moved for more time to object to a January 2019 Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The court determined that Peet’s deadline was February 11, 2019, and that his motion was filed on that date. Because the motion was timely, the court considered whether Peet had shown “good cause,” meaning an adequate reason for the requested extension.
Peet said that he needed more than 14 days to obtain help understanding how to pursue the case. The court found that explanation insufficient to establish good cause. The court nevertheless liberally construed parts of his filing as objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Review of the earlier order
Because the court had not known that Peet had filed a timely objection, it had previously adopted the Report and Recommendation using the limited review required when no timely objection is filed. The court vacated that earlier order and conducted the required review of Peet’s objections. After that review, the court concluded that Magistrate Judge Leung’s analysis and conclusions were correct and accepted the Report and Recommendation in full.
Rulings
The court ordered the following:
- The February 11, 2019 order adopting the Report and Recommendation was vacated. - Peet’s motion for an extension of time was denied in part and overruled in part: it was denied insofar as it requested an extension, and the filing was overruled insofar as it constituted objections to the Report and Recommendation. - The motion to dismiss filed by Debbie Goettel and Michelle Luna was granted in part and denied in part. Counts One through Three were dismissed with prejudice. Count Four was dismissed with prejudice to the extent it sought monetary relief, while the motion was denied to the extent Count Four sought injunctive relief. - The motion for partial dismissal with prejudice filed by Mark Jones and Sue Morfit was granted. - The motion to dismiss filed by Department of Housing and Urban Development Minneapolis Field Office Director Michele K. Smith and Department of Housing and Urban Development Investigator Lendine Darden was granted as to Counts One and Two, which were dismissed with prejudice, and as to Counts Three and Four, which were dismissed without prejudice. - Peet’s motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice.
The opinion excerpt does not describe the underlying allegations or explain the substance of Counts One through Four beyond these dispositions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.