Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:19-cv-01590
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Powell v. Wal-Mart, Judge Tunheim deemed Powell’s objection moot, affirmed the magistrate judge’s order, and returned the case for further review.
Pamela Powell, who represented herself, and the defendants named in her complaint. The order left Powell’s amended complaint subject to further review and did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pamela Powell, representing herself, alleged that Wal-Mart and other defendants discriminated against her and violated other laws. She asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
A magistrate judge temporarily denied that request, finding that much of Powell’s complaint appeared frivolous or malicious and directing her to amend it. Powell objected, moved for the magistrate judge’s recusal, sought more time to serve the defendants, and filed an amended complaint by the deadline.
Judge John R. Tunheim deemed Powell’s objection moot because she complied with the order, affirmed the magistrate judge’s order, declined to rule on recusal because the magistrate judge had not yet considered it, and referred the matter back for further review.
The detailed version
- Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-01590
- John Tunheim
- Oct. 4, 2019
Background
Pamela Powell sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Walmart Inc.; Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.; numerous individuals and entities; and other defendants. She alleged employment discrimination based on religion, race, gender, national origin, disability, and marital status. She also asserted various other claims, including alleged violations of the Organized Crime Act of 1970 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The opinion states that her factual allegations were unclear.
Powell filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. A magistrate judge temporarily denied the application after finding that the complaint was largely “frivolous and malicious” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The magistrate judge specifically found that Powell had not explained why dozens of additional defendants were included. The order directed Powell to amend her complaint by naming only defendants whom she believed had violated the law and explaining, as clearly as possible, why she believed each defendant had done so. It stated that failure to amend by July 19, 2019, could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Proceedings and Rulings
Powell timely objected to the magistrate judge’s order, moved for recusal, requested an extension of time to serve process tied to approval of her fee-waiver application, and filed an amended complaint. Because Powell complied with the order by the deadline, Judge Tunheim held that there was no recommendation concerning dismissal for the Court to review. The Court therefore deemed her objection moot and referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for further review.
The Court did not rule on Powell’s recusal motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the judicial officer whose recusal is sought must make the initial recusal determination, and the magistrate judge had not yet done so. The Court also did not decide whether Powell was entitled to an extension of time to serve process because her fee-waiver application had not yet been granted.
Disposition
The Court deemed Powell’s objection to the magistrate judge’s order MOOT and AFFIRMED the magistrate judge’s order. The ruling did not decide the merits of Powell’s discrimination or other claims, and it did not decide her fee-waiver application or recusal motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.