Bui v. U.S. Attorney
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:20-cv-01293
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bui v. U.S. Attorney, Judge Brasel dismissed the frivolous case and denied Bui’s fee-waiver application.
Michael John Bui’s case was dismissed, and his application to proceed without paying court fees was denied. He received a warning that future frivolous or vexatious lawsuits in the District of Minnesota could result in filing restrictions; no restriction was imposed in this order.
What happened
In Bui v. U.S. Attorney, Michael John Bui sued the U.S. Attorney, Chad A. Blumenfield, and the U.S. Marshals. He also asked to proceed without paying court fees.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case as frivolous, denying Bui’s fee-waiver application, and restricting future filings. Bui objected, but his objections did not address the recommendation and were largely unintelligible. The court found that his complaint was largely incoherent and did not explain any basis for relief.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel overruled Bui’s objection, accepted the recommendation as modified, dismissed the action as frivolous, and denied his fee-waiver application. The court did not impose a filing restriction, but warned that continued frivolous or vexatious lawsuits could lead to restrictions later.
The detailed version
- Bui v. U.S. Attorney · No. 0:20-cv-01293
- Nancy Brasel
- July 29, 2020
Background
Michael John Bui filed a complaint against the U.S. Attorney, Chad A. Blumenfield, and the U.S. Marshals. He also applied to proceed without paying court fees. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), denying the fee-waiver application, and restricting Bui from filing civil actions in the District of Minnesota unless represented by counsel or given advance permission.
Bui filed objections to the recommendation, but the district court found that they did not address the recommendation’s merits and were largely unintelligible. The court reviewed the recommendation independently and agreed that Bui’s largely incoherent complaint did not allege any basis for relief against the defendants.
Filing-restriction recommendation
The court agreed that Bui’s history of filing frivolous actions and his statement that he would continue suing people supported concern about future filings. But although the court found his filings frivolous, it was reluctant to impose filing restrictions without first warning him. The court therefore modified the recommendation by giving Bui a formal warning that continued frivolous or vexatious lawsuits in the District of Minnesota could lead to filing restrictions.
Ruling
The court overruled Bui’s objection and accepted the report and recommendation as modified. It dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied Bui’s application to proceed without paying court fees. It did not impose the proposed filing restriction in this order. Judge Nancy E. Brasel directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.