Domino v. Garland
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-02583
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Domino v. Garland, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, dismissed the action, granted one motion, and denied the others.
Dylan Alexander Domino was affected by the dismissal, denial of his fee-waiver applications, $314.95 filing-fee obligation, and strike. The respondents were affected by the dismissal of the action and the substitution ruling.
What happened
In Domino v. Garland, the court reviewed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s recommendation to dismiss Dylan Alexander Domino’s action under the prisoner-screening law and deny his applications to proceed without paying fees. Domino objected, but the court overruled his objections and accepted the recommendation.
The court dismissed the action and denied Domino’s applications to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. It granted his motion to substitute the respondents but denied his motions about extending time for service, having a U.S. Marshal serve the respondents, and changing the case type. The court also ordered him to pay $314.95 in unpaid filing fees and counted the dismissal as a strike under the prisoner-litigation law.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered the order on April 1, 2021. The order noted that Domino had been released after the recommendation was issued, but said the screening law and filing-fee obligation still applied because he was incarcerated when he filed the action.
The detailed version
- Domino v. Garland · No. 0:20-cv-02583
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
Dylan Alexander Domino brought this action while he was incarcerated at the Anoka County Jail. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), meaning a recommended decision for the district judge, recommending that the action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and that Domino’s applications to proceed without prepaying fees or costs be denied.
Domino objected to the R&R. Because he objected, Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the recommendation independently, as required by federal law and the court’s local rules. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide those claims on their merits; it addresses the required screening and related filing-fee issues.
Release from Custody and Filing Fee
Domino was released from custody after the R&R was issued. The court held that § 1915A still applied because he was incarcerated when he filed the action. The court also held that his release did not eliminate his obligation to pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee. It ordered Domino to pay $314.95 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The court noted that, because Domino was no longer incarcerated, the payment process in § 1915(b)(2) could not be implemented at that time. The court stated that the provision might apply if he became incarcerated again in the future.
Motions and Disposition
The court overruled Domino’s objections and accepted the R&R. It granted Domino’s motion to substitute the respondents, while noting that substitution was automatic under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). It denied his motions for an extension of time to serve the respondents, to appoint a U.S. Marshal to serve them, and to modify the case type to a miscellaneous filing.
The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and denied Domino’s applications to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. It also ordered that the dismissal count as a “strike” against Domino under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.