Baylor v. Gildea
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-01811
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Baylor v. Gildea, Judge Tostrud dismissed Baylor’s action without prejudice, denied fee-waiver requests, and denied expedited relief after screening his pro se complaint.
Christopher Gary Baylor’s action was dismissed without prejudice. The ruling addressed claims against Lorie Skjerven Gildea, Susan L. Segal, and Tim Walz, and denied Baylor’s requests to proceed without prepaying court fees and his request for expedited relief.
What happened
In Baylor v. Gildea, Christopher Gary Baylor challenged actions by Minnesota judicial officials and Governor Tim Walz. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Baylor’s complaint and denying his request to proceed without prepaying court fees. Baylor objected, arguing that the screening law did not apply to non-prisoners and that his claims should not be dismissed.
The court rejected Baylor’s arguments. It held that the screening law can apply to both prisoners and non-prisoners who seek to proceed without prepaying fees. It also held that the claims against Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and Chief Judge Susan L. Segal were barred by judicial immunity because the challenged dismissals and rulings were judicial acts. The court found that Baylor did not allege that Governor Tim Walz personally violated his constitutional rights. The court did not rely on the rule that federal courts generally cannot review certain state-court judgments as a basis for dismissal.
Judge Tostrud overruled Baylor’s objections and accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The action was dismissed without prejudice under the screening law. The court denied Baylor’s initial and supplemental requests to proceed without prepaying fees, denied his appellate fee application as moot, and denied his motion for expedited relief.
The detailed version
- Baylor v. Gildea · No. 0:20-cv-01811
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
Christopher Gary Baylor filed a complaint without a lawyer against Lorie Skjerven Gildea, identified as Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court; Susan L. Segal, identified as Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals; and Tim Walz, identified as Governor of Minnesota. Baylor sought permission to proceed without prepaying court fees.
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denial of Baylor’s application to proceed without prepaying fees. Baylor filed objections. The district court reviewed those objections independently, as required by the governing statute and local rule.
Baylor’s objections and the court’s reasoning
Baylor argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal when an action fails to state a claim, applies only to prisoners. The court rejected that argument. It explained that although the Eighth Circuit had not directly resolved the question, that court had repeatedly affirmed dismissals under this provision involving non-prisoners seeking to proceed without prepaying fees. The court also relied on decisions from other courts and concluded that the provision applies to prisoners and non-prisoners alike.
Baylor also argued that the actions challenged in his claims against Chief Justice Gildea and Chief Judge Segal—dismissals of actions, denials of writs, and denials of petitions for review—were administrative rather than judicial. The court disagreed. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from lawsuits for judicial acts, including claims alleging bad faith or malice. The court found that the challenged actions were functions normally performed by judges and were taken in matters Baylor had presented to the courts. It therefore held that the claims against Gildea and Segal were barred by judicial immunity. The court stated that those claims would be dismissed on that basis alone and did not rely on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as an additional ground.
Finally, Baylor objected to the conclusion that he failed to state a claim against Governor Walz. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an allegation that a government official personally violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Because Baylor’s allegations against Walz were derivative of his allegations against Gildea and Segal, and because he did not allege that Walz personally violated his rights through appointing judicial officers or otherwise, the court found the allegations insufficient.
Order
Judge Eric C. Tostrud overruled Baylor’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. The court ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It denied Baylor’s application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs; denied as moot his separate application to proceed without prepaying fees in the Court of Appeals; denied his supplemental district-court application; and denied his motion for expedited relief. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.