Ehlers v. Smoot
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-01814
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ehlers v. Smoot, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation and permitted an amended civil-rights complaint, or the petition would be denied without prejudice.
Edwin A. Ehlers, whose petition could be denied without prejudice if he did not timely file an amended civil-rights complaint; the respondents were not subjected to a merits ruling.
What happened
In Ehlers v. Smoot, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation because no party objected. The court found no clear error.
The court permitted Edwin A. Ehlers to file an amended pleading described as a civil-rights complaint by March 27, 2019. He could also apply to proceed without paying filing fees, and the clerk was directed to provide a standard complaint form.
If Ehlers did not file the amended pleading on time, the court ordered that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus would be denied without prejudice. Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation but did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ehlers v. Smoot · No. 0:18-cv-01814
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 25, 2019
Background
Edwin A. Ehlers filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Patricia W. Smoot, Patricia K. Cushwa, Charles T. Massarone, and Michael Alberts. United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a January 22, 2019 Report and Recommendation. No party objected.
Court’s review and ruling
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation.
The order permitted Ehlers to file an amended pleading, styled as a civil-rights complaint, within 30 days and no later than March 27, 2019. If he filed that amended complaint, he could also submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk’s office was directed to provide him with the district’s standard complaint template.
The court stated that if Ehlers failed to file the amended pleading within the permitted time, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus would be denied without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.