Evenstad v. Stanek
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02034
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Evenstad v. Stanek, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice because Evenstad failed to provide required financial information.
Thomas Wayne Evenstad’s action against Richard Walton Stanek, SERT Deputy Marshall, SERT Deputy Kasparek, Stuart Evan Shapiro, John Does 1–10, Jane Does 1–5, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, and Hennepin County was dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Evenstad v. Stanek, Thomas Wayne Evenstad asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and filed a complaint against the defendants. The court required him to provide financial information needed to calculate an initial partial filing fee.
A magistrate judge gave Evenstad 20 days to submit the information and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Evenstad did not submit the required information, and no party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Judge Tostrud reviewed the recommendation for clear error, accepted it, and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This means the dismissal did not bar a later filing based on the same matter.
The detailed version
- Evenstad v. Stanek · No. 0:19-cv-02034
- Eric Tostrud
- Nov. 6, 2019
Background
Thomas Wayne Evenstad filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. A magistrate judge deferred deciding that application and ordered Evenstad to provide financial information required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) to calculate an initial partial filing fee.
The order gave Evenstad 20 days to provide the information and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that Evenstad did not submit any of the required financial information.
Review of the Recommendation
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The court explained that a federal trial court has authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and that the earlier order had notified Evenstad of the deficiency, provided time to correct it, and warned of the possible consequence.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation and ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that judgment should be entered accordingly. It does not address the merits of Evenstad’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.