Rindahl v. United States Attorney's Office for Minnesota

Background

Randy Lee Rindahl, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued the United States Attorney’s Office for Minnesota. His filings sought a writ of mandamus—a court order compelling an official or agency to take a specified action—requiring the office to investigate and prosecute a South Dakota Department of Corrections employee whom Rindahl alleged had threatened a federal judge.

Rindahl did not pay the filing fee and instead applied to proceed without paying it. A magistrate judge denied that application under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee when the prisoner has had three or more earlier federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner shows imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The magistrate judge found that Rindahl’s mandamus petition was a civil action because it was unrelated to an existing criminal or habeas proceeding. The judge also found that Rindahl had at least five qualifying prior dismissals and that his allegations did not establish the imminent-danger exception. Rindahl was ordered to pay the $400 filing fee.

Motion to Vacate and Objection

Rindahl moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that the magistrate judge had improperly treated his petition as a civil-rights complaint rather than as a common-law writ. He also submitted an affidavit alleging that prison officials had falsely labeled him as a Ku Klux Klan member and placed him in a cell with rival gang members.

The magistrate judge denied the motion to vacate, finding that Rindahl had not shown the exceptional or compelling circumstances required for reconsideration. The judge also concluded that a mandamus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is a civil action subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and that Rindahl’s imminent-danger allegations were speculative. Rindahl then filed a document titled “Writ of Error Corum Nobis.” The district court construed that filing as a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s order.

Court’s Analysis

The district court determined that the magistrate judge’s order was nondispositive because it left Rindahl free to continue the case by paying the filing fee. The court therefore reviewed the order for clear error, meaning a clear mistake in the magistrate judge’s decision.

The court rejected Rindahl’s argument that a mandamus petition under § 1361 is exempt from the Prison Litigation Reform Act. It explained that the authority Rindahl cited had declined to decide that question. The court relied instead on decisions from other federal courts holding that mandamus petitions seeking to begin new proceedings, rather than seeking relief within an existing criminal case, are civil actions for purposes of the prisoner filing-fee restrictions.

Disposition

The court held that the magistrate judge did not err in treating Rindahl’s petition as a civil action subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court therefore overruled Rindahl’s objection. It separately denied Rindahl’s “Motion to Be Brought Forth” as moot.