Mays v. Bloomington Police Department
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-00568
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Mays v. Bloomington Police Department, Judge Thorson partly extended a fee deadline, temporarily sealed a letter, and recommended denying unrelated prison-access relief.
Otis Mays; the defendants in his lawsuit; the Clerk’s Office; and, indirectly, staff at the Federal Correctional Institution in Gilmer County, West Virginia, who were not parties to the case.
What happened
In Mays v. Bloomington Police Department, Otis Mays asked for more time to pay a $13.81 initial filing fee, temporary sealing of part of his letter, and an order requiring staff at the federal prison where he was incarcerated to provide writing instruments and computer access. His underlying lawsuit alleges excessive force and inadequate medical care, but this opinion did not decide those claims.
The court granted in part and denied in part Mays’s request for more time, giving him 30 days from the order’s date to pay the $13.81 fee. It also granted in part and denied in part his sealing request and temporarily sealed the letter. The court recommended denying his request for writing instruments and extended computer access because the prison and its staff were not parties to the case and were outside the court’s authority over this lawsuit.
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued the July 27, 2020 Order and Report and Recommendation. The recommendation was not a final order or judgment, and the notice stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Mays v. Bloomington Police Department · No. 0:20-cv-00568
- Susan Nelson
- July 27, 2020
Background
Otis Mays brought claims against the Bloomington Police Department, the City of Bloomington, Carolyn Kne, unidentified John and Jane Doe defendants, and the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center. The complaint alleges that people associated with the Bloomington Police Department and the detention center violated Mays’s constitutional rights by using excessive force during an arrest and/or failing to provide appropriate medical care.
Mays applied to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront. The court had previously ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $13.81. In a letter received on May 29, 2020, Mays requested a 60-day extension to pay that fee, temporary sealing of part of the letter, and an order requiring staff at the Federal Correctional Institution in Gilmer County, West Virginia, to provide writing instruments and at least five hours per week of access to the facility’s law-library computer.
Rulings
The court granted in part and denied in part Mays’s request for a 60-day extension. It gave him 30 days from the date of the order to pay the $13.81 initial partial filing fee. The court stated that if he did not pay within that period, it would recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The court granted in part and denied in part Mays’s request to seal part of the May 29 letter. It directed the Clerk’s Office to temporarily seal the letter at docket number 7. If the case proceeded, the court would later address whether the document should remain sealed. The court also explained that court records generally are accessible to the public and instructed Mays to identify future requests to file submissions under seal before filing them.
The court construed Mays’s requests for writing instruments and extended computer access as requests for a preliminary injunction, meaning an order requiring particular conduct while a case is pending. It recommended that those requests be denied because the Federal Correctional Institution in Gilmer County and its staff were not parties to the lawsuit, and the requested injunction therefore exceeded the court’s authority in this case.
Procedural status and classification
This document contains an order on the filing-fee and sealing requests and a recommendation on the request for prison access. It did not decide the merits of Mays’s excessive-force or medical-care claims. The recommendation was not a final order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.