Edwards v. Schnell
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-01144
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Edwards v. Schnell, Judge Tunheim dismissed Edwards’s complaint without prejudice after he failed to pay the required initial filing fee.
The decision affected Anthony LaVelle Edwards’s proposed class action by dismissing his complaint without prejudice. The court did not decide whether the alleged Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection violations occurred. The defendants were not required to litigate those allegations in this dismissed case.
What happened
In Edwards v. Schnell, Anthony LaVelle Edwards brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights. The court had allowed him to apply to proceed without paying all filing costs upfront but ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $21.10 by December 22, 2020.
Edwards did not pay the fee. He objected, saying he was completely indigent and could not pay until receiving a $600 COVID-19 relief payment. The court said he had not provided the required financial records to show that he could not pay the fee.
Judge Tunheim overruled Edwards’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Edwards’s second fee application as moot, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The dismissal allows Edwards to bring the suit again if he can pay the fee or properly show that he cannot.
The detailed version
- Edwards v. Schnell · No. 0:20-cv-01144
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Anthony LaVelle Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a proposed class action against Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, and other defendants. The complaint alleged violations of Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Edwards applied to proceed without prepaying all filing fees. Under the prisoner-filing-fee statute, the court ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $21.10 by December 22, 2020. He did not pay by the deadline. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward or comply with a court order.
Objection and analysis
Edwards objected to the recommendation. He stated that he was completely indigent and could not pay the fee until he received a $600 COVID-19 relief stimulus payment.
The court reviewed the objection independently, as required for an objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It concluded that Edwards had not complied with the order requiring payment. The court also found that Edwards had not provided the financial documents required to show that he could not pay the initial partial fee, including an affidavit listing his assets and a certified trust-fund account statement or equivalent record.
The court recognized that complete inability to pay does not prevent a prisoner from filing a civil action. But it said that it could not reassess Edwards’s financial situation based only on the information in his objection.
Disposition
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Edwards’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court denied Edwards’s second application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The opinion explains that Edwards may attempt to bring the suit again if he is able to pay the initial partial filing fee or properly show that he cannot pay it. The court did not decide the alleged equal-protection claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.