Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 10, 2019

Hill v. State of Minnesota

Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Docket
0:19-cv-01794
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hill v. State of Minnesota, Judge Wright dismissed Hill’s petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denied her fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Rachel Eta Hill’s petition on behalf of B.H. and A.E.H. was dismissed without prejudice, and Hill’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied.

What happened

In Hill v. State of Minnesota, Rachel Eta Hill filed a petition on behalf of B.H. and A.E.H. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice because Hill failed to prosecute the case. The recommendation also advised denying Hill’s request to proceed without paying court fees and costs. No objections were filed.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, dismissed the petition without prejudice, and denied Hill’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hill v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:19-cv-01794
Judge
Wilhelmina Wright
Date
Dec. 10, 2019

Background

Rachel Eta Hill filed a petition seeking habeas relief on behalf of B.H. and A.E.H. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying allegations or the relief sought. Hill also applied to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs.

Report and Recommendation

United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer issued a November 19, 2019 Report and Recommendation. It recommended dismissing Hill’s petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). It also recommended denying Hill’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. No objections were filed.

Review and Ruling

Because no objections were filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Hill’s habeas petition without prejudice and denied her application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. Judgment was ordered entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.