Greene v. Osborne-Leivian
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-00533
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Greene v. Osborne-Leivian, Judge Tostrud granted limited fee-waiver status, ordered service steps, and denied counsel appointment.
Guy I. Greene and the defendants named in the order, including the Service Defendants and the officials sued in their individual and official capacities.
What happened
In Greene v. Osborne-Leivian, the court addressed Guy I. Greene’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and related case-management matters. The court granted that request for Greene’s retaliation, due-process, deliberate-indifference, and failure-to-protect claims.
The court ordered Greene to complete service forms for the listed defendants. It directed the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to pursue service, and warned that failing to return the forms within 30 days would lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court also denied Greene’s requests for appointed counsel.
Judge Eric Tostrud is identified in the case information; the order itself was signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on January 31, 2020. The order did not decide whether Greene’s underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Osborne-Leivian · No. 0:19-cv-00533
- Eric Tostrud
- Jan. 31, 2020
What the order decided
The court granted Guy I. Greene’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees for his retaliation, due-process, deliberate-indifference, and failure-to-protect claims. Proceeding without paying filing fees is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis; here, the order granted that status only as to the identified claims.
Service of the defendants
The court ordered Greene to complete and return Marshal Service Form USM-285 for the listed defendants, referred to collectively as the “Service Defendants.” The court stated that if Greene did not return the forms within 30 days, it would recommend dismissing the matter without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the order expressly left open the possibility of refiling, but the court did not dismiss the case in this order.
After receiving the completed forms, the Clerk of Court was directed to seek waivers of service from the defendants sued in their individual capacities. The U.S. Marshals Service was directed to serve the defendants sued in their official capacities. The order also stated that an individual-capacity defendant who failed without good cause to return a waiver could be required to pay later service expenses.
The footnote states that Jodi Harpstead should be substituted for former Commissioner Tony Lourey to the extent Lourey was sued in his official capacity, under the rule providing for substitution of a public officer’s successor.
Request for appointed counsel
The court denied Greene’s requests for appointed counsel to the extent his December 10, 2019, and January 3, 2020, letters requested counsel. Greene cited mental illness and being held in segregation. The court reasoned that his litigation history and filings showed that he could present his position and understood basic legal procedure, and that he had not provided specific examples showing that mental illness prevented him from representing himself.
The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The case information identifies Eric Tostrud as the judge. The order addressed filing-fee status, service, and counsel; it did not decide the merits of Greene’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.