York-Tallman v. State of Minnesota
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In York-Tallman v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and denied the fee application as moot.
The plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and their application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The State of Minnesota was the defendant.
What happened
In York-Tallman v. State of Minnesota, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the plaintiffs’ complaint and their application to proceed without paying court fees. No party objected to the recommendation.
The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim under the federal statute governing fee-free cases, and denied the fee application as moot.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud issued the order on February 11, 2020. The opinion does not explain the claims in the complaint or why they failed to state a claim.
The detailed version
- York-Tallman v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:19-cv-03086
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the State of Minnesota and applied to proceed in district court without paying filing fees or other costs. United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on January 24, 2020. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s underlying claims.
Court’s review
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Judge Eric C. Tostrud found no clear error.
Ruling
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any refiling requirements. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot, meaning the application no longer required a ruling after the complaint was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.