Munt v. Schnell

Background

Joel Marvin Munt asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the case. He relied on 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(iv) and gave two reasons. First, he argued that District Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau had previously taken control of cases from which he believed they were barred, and that the delay after his application to proceed without paying filing fees was processed suggested Judge Nelson might also take control of this case. Second, he argued that another case, No. 18-cv-2144-SRN-SER, might raise a serious constitutional issue involving the Prison Litigation Reform Act that could affect this case on appeal.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it has broad discretion to stay proceedings to manage its docket, but the person seeking a stay has the burden of showing why one is needed. Traditionally, that requires specific hardship or unfairness if the case continues, and the standard favors the party opposing the stay.

The court found that Munt’s motion did not identify any hardship or unfairness that would result from proceeding before Judge Nelson and Judge Rau. It noted that Munt had raised similar objections in multiple earlier cases and that neither judge had been found to act with bias toward him. The court also explained that the other case was still proceeding in the District of Minnesota and had not been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, making the possible appeal premature and not presently before the court.

Ruling

Judge Steven E. Rau concluded that granting a stay without supporting evidence or argument would improperly delay the case and that judicial economy and fairness favored allowing it to proceed. The court denied Joel Marvin Munt’s Request for Stay, ECF No. 7.