Abari v. Minneapolis Police Department
- Donovan Frank
- 0:19-cv-01455
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Abari v. Minneapolis Police Department, Judge Frank denied Abari’s appeal and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order.
Anthony Akeum Abari was required to pay the initial partial filing fee for the action to proceed, and his request for recusal was denied. His requests to amend the complaint and obtain copies were left for consideration after payment.
What happened
In Abari v. Minneapolis Police Department, Anthony Akeum Abari, who was representing himself, challenged an order requiring him to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $36.62. He said he could not afford the fee and asked that payment be postponed or waived.
Abari also asked to add a Minneapolis police officer and the City of Minneapolis as defendants and requested a different magistrate judge. The magistrate judge had denied his request for recusal and said his case would proceed only if he paid the initial partial fee; requests to amend the complaint and obtain copies would be considered afterward.
Judge Frank ruled that the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. He overruled Abari’s objections, denied his appeal, and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order in all respects.
The detailed version
- Abari v. Minneapolis Police Department · No. 0:19-cv-01455
- Donovan Frank
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Anthony Akeum Abari, proceeding without a lawyer, objected to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s October 22, 2019 order. That order required him to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $36.62 within 30 days. It also stated that failure to pay would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and it denied Abari’s request that the magistrate judge recuse herself.
Abari argued that he lacked the means to pay the partial fee and that requiring payment violated his rights. He asked that payment be waived or delayed. He also sought to add a Minneapolis police officer and the City of Minneapolis as defendants and requested assignment to a different magistrate judge. The magistrate judge had stated that Abari’s requests to amend his complaint and obtain copies of materials would be considered after he paid the initial partial filing fee.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and the District of Minnesota’s local rules, the district court could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court described this as an extremely deferential standard. A finding is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the evidence, the court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made. An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.
Ruling
Judge Donovan W. Frank found that the magistrate judge had explained the law governing filing fees and had relied on a trust-account statement indicating that Abari appeared able to pay the initial partial fee. The court also found that the magistrate judge had correctly determined that Abari had not made the required showing for recusal.
The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It overruled Abari’s objections, denied his appeal, and affirmed the October 22, 2019 order in all respects. The opinion did not decide the merits of Abari’s underlying claims against the Minneapolis Police Department.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.