Amen El Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i v. Schnell

Background

The matter concerned Plaintiff Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El’s “Request to Response to Defendants’ Response to Rule Nisi and Other Matters.” The court treated the filing as a reply concerning an earlier “Rule Nisi” request and several filings labeled “Judicial Notices.” The Rule Nisi sought an order requiring Defendants to explain why Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, including quarantine guidance, should not control during a COVID-19 outbreak at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater.

The court had previously recommended denying the Rule Nisi, which it construed as a request for an order requiring Defendants to show cause. It explained that the request was essentially for injunctive relief—an order requiring or prohibiting conduct—but did not relate to Plaintiff’s claims for money damages based on events from October 27, 2020, through December 4, 2020. The court also previously recommended rejecting the Judicial Notices because the facts Plaintiff wanted recognized were subject to reasonable dispute and therefore were outside the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b).

Arguments and analysis

In his reply, Plaintiff continued to ask the court to require state officials to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, use additional space to separate positive and negative inmates, and refrain from staging confrontations with inmates. He asserted that positive and negative inmates had been housed in the same unit, that he had contracted COVID-19, and that officials had performed weekly testing. He also argued that the Judicial Notices established or recorded facts about COVID-19 conditions, masking, transfers, and alleged exposure to harm.

The court concluded that the reply did not change its earlier recommendations. Plaintiff acknowledged that weekly COVID-19 testing had made the initial request for relief moot. To the extent the reply sought additional relief, the court recommended denying it because the requests were not filed as a motion with the supporting papers required by Local Rule 7.1, did not relate to Plaintiff’s damages claim in this case, and were not supported by a showing of extreme circumstances warranting judicial interference with the facility’s COVID-19 prevention measures.

Recommendation and procedural status

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended three dispositions: (1) denying Plaintiff’s Rule Nisi request; (2) rejecting Plaintiff’s Judicial Notices; and (3) denying Plaintiff’s Request to Response to Defendants’ Response to Rule Nisi and Other Matters to the extent it sought other relief. The document expressly stated that it was a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.