Thundercloud v. Roy
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-00448
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Thundercloud v. Schnell: Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed one constitutional claim without prejudice, other claims with prejudice, and denied his application to proceed without paying fees as moot.
The order dismissed Rodney Thundercloud’s claims: the treatment-condition constitutional claim was dismissed without prejudice, while all other claims were dismissed with prejudice. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot.
What happened
In Rodney Thundercloud v. Paul Schnell and others, Thundercloud brought claims against the listed defendants. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the matter under a federal statute governing certain fee-waived lawsuits.
No party objected to the recommendation. The court dismissed Thundercloud’s claim concerning a treatment condition that allegedly violated constitutional rights without prejudice, and dismissed all other claims with prejudice. It also denied his application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, accepted it, and ordered judgment entered. The opinion does not identify the other claims or explain the reasons for their dismissal.
The detailed version
- Thundercloud v. Roy · No. 0:19-cv-00448
- Eric Tostrud
- July 23, 2019
Background
Rodney Thundercloud was the plaintiff. The defendants were Paul Schnell, Tony Lourey, Nancy Johnston, Keith Ellison in his capacity as Minnesota Attorney General, Kelly Lyn Mitchell in her capacity as Executive Director of the Minnesota Sentencing Commission, and Jane and John Does in their official capacities.
The court received a June 27, 2019 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez. No party objected. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Rulings
The court found no clear error and accepted the report and recommendation. It dismissed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a statute authorizing dismissal of certain cases filed by people seeking to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court made two separate claim dispositions:
- Thundercloud’s claim concerning a condition of treatment that amounted to a violation of constitutional rights was dismissed without prejudice. - All other claims were dismissed with prejudice.
The court also denied Thundercloud’s application to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, to proceed without paying the required filing fees—as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered. The opinion does not identify the other claims or explain the underlying reasons for their dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.