Amen El Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i v. Schnell
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-01327
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Amen El v. Schnell: Judge Doty upheld dismissal of the complaint, denied related motions, and rejected the plaintiff’s objections.
Amen El, Pharaoh El-Forever Left-I’s claims and motions were affected. The motion to dismiss ended Count 1 with prejudice and Count 2 without prejudice; the opinion also ruled on his other motions and requests.
What happened
In Amen El, Pharaoh El-Forever Left-I v. Paul Schnell, et al., the dispute arose from the COVID-19 response at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, where Amen El was incarcerated. He objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning his claims and several motions.
Amen El argued that his second amended complaint adequately supported his claims, that the magistrate judge improperly viewed evidence in the defendants’ favor, and that Count I should be dismissed without prejudice. The court rejected those arguments, concluding that he had not plausibly alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that Count I failed as a matter of law.
Judge Doty overruled the objections and adopted the recommendations. He denied the motion to amend, the request for a temporary restraining order, the “Rule Nisi” motion, and another request for relief; rejected the “Judicial Notices”; granted the request to exceed word limits; and granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing Count 1 with prejudice and Count 2 without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Amen El Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i v. Schnell · No. 0:20-cv-01327
- David Doty
- Mar. 14, 2022
Background
The case concerned the COVID-19 response at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater, where Amen El was incarcerated. The opinion addressed Amen El’s objections to a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to amend the second amended complaint, denying the motion for a temporary restraining order, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denying the “Rule Nisi” motion, and rejecting the “Judicial Notices.”
Objections
Amen El made three objections. He argued that the second amended complaint adequately supported his claims, that the magistrate judge improperly construed the evidence in the defendants’ favor, and that Count I should be dismissed without prejudice.
The court reviewed the portions of the report and recommendation to which specific objections were made. It also stated that it would read the filings of a self-represented litigant liberally, but would not supply additional facts or create legal theories for that litigant.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Amen El had failed to plausibly allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also concluded that the magistrate judge properly applied the standard for deciding a motion to dismiss and that Count I failed as a matter of law. The court rejected the request to dismiss Count I without prejudice, stating that Amen El had had ample opportunity to present his case and that allowing another opportunity would not be fruitful.
Disposition
Judge Doty overruled Amen El’s objections and adopted the reports and recommendations in their entirety. The court granted the letter request to exceed word limits. It denied the motion to amend the second amended complaint, the motion for a temporary restraining order, and the “Rule Nisi” motion. It rejected the “Judicial Notices.” It also denied the “Request to Response to Defendants’ Response to Rule Nisi and Other Matters” to the extent it sought other relief.
The court granted the motion to dismiss as follows: the second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to Count 1 and without prejudice as to Count 2. The court ordered that judgment be entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.