Larson v. State of Minnesota
- David Doty
- 0:19-cv-03027
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Larson v. State of Minnesota, Judge Doty dismissed the action without prejudice after finding the amended filing frivolous and denying fee-waiver status.
Richard Larson Jr.’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied. The named defendants were the State of Minnesota, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other entities or police described in the caption and filings.
What happened
In Larson v. State of Minnesota, Richard Larson Jr., who was representing himself, was ordered to file a more detailed amended complaint after the court found his original complaint frivolous. He did not meet the initial deadline, but later filed material that the court treated as a possible amended complaint.
The court reviewed that filing and found it still did not explain how the named defendants harmed Larson or could be legally responsible. The court therefore found the complaint frivolous because it had no reasonable basis in law or fact.
Judge David S. Doty rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Larson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice under federal law.
The detailed version
- Larson v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:19-cv-03027
- David Doty
- Feb. 21, 2020
Background
Richard Larson Jr. filed the action while representing himself and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. On December 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright found that the original complaint was frivolous—that is, it had no arguable basis in law or fact—and ordered Larson to file an amended complaint with more detail within 30 days. The order stated that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Larson did not file an amended complaint within that period. Magistrate Judge Wright therefore recommended dismissal. Larson later filed an objection that also appeared to be an attempt to amend his complaint. The court decided to consider that new filing rather than rely solely on the failure-to-prosecute recommendation.
Court’s analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which allows a court to dismiss an action filed by a person proceeding without filing fees when the complaint is frivolous. The court stated that Larson’s new filing repeated the claims in the original complaint and added exhibits, including a competency order and evaluation from a state criminal case, trespassing notices filed by local businesses, and applications for restraining orders involving Larson and family members.
The court concluded that these materials still did not explain how the named defendants—the State of Minnesota, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the City of Champlin—allegedly harmed Larson or could legally be held responsible. It therefore found that the complaint remained frivolous and that dismissal was proper under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court rejected the report and recommendation, denied Larson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, and dismissed the action without prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.