Harvey v. Minnesota Department of Correction
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-00346
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Harvey v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Judge Wright denied Harvey’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice because it was premature.
Nigeria Lee Harvey’s summary-judgment motion was denied without prejudice; the order also overruled his objections and adopted the report and recommendation.
What happened
In Harvey v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Nigeria Lee Harvey asked the court to grant summary judgment in his favor before discovery had ended.
Harvey argued that prisoner litigants proceeding without lawyers were exempt from discovery and that defense counsel improperly responded to his motion with letters instead of motions. The court explained that although such litigants are exempt from initial disclosures, they are not exempt from discovery generally.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Harvey’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and denied Harvey’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature. The court found that he filed an incomplete motion without permission and before the discovery deadline.
The detailed version
- Harvey v. Minnesota Department of Correction · No. 0:21-cv-00346
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Oct. 27, 2021
Background
The court reviewed a July 15, 2021 report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. The report recommended denying Nigeria Lee Harvey’s motion for summary judgment as premature. Summary judgment is a request for judgment under the applicable legal standards without waiting for the case to proceed through the remaining pretrial process.
Harvey was proceeding without a lawyer. He objected that prisoner litigants without lawyers are exempt from initial disclosures and discovery, and therefore argued that his summary-judgment motion was not premature. He also argued that defense counsel improperly responded to the motion with letters rather than motions. Harvey additionally filed a motion for clarification and supplemental objections; the court stated that those filings would not change the result.
Analysis
The court explained that prisoner litigants without lawyers are exempt from the initial-disclosure requirement, but no rule exempts them from discovery as a whole. The court also relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b), which generally permits a party to file a summary-judgment motion until 30 days after discovery closes unless a different schedule applies.
The judge’s practice rules did not permit a party to file a summary-judgment motion before the discovery deadline without the court’s permission. The court stated that permission had to be requested in a letter filed with the court. It also noted that Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) requires documents to be filed with a dispositive motion, including a hearing notice, memorandum of law, affidavits and exhibits, and proposed order.
The court found that Harvey filed an incomplete summary-judgment motion without permission and well before discovery ended. Because the motion did not comply with the applicable court rules, the court overruled Harvey’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Order
The court ordered that Harvey’s objections to the report and recommendation were overruled and that the report and recommendation was adopted. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied Harvey’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.