Rodriguez v. D.O.C

Background

Rico Rodriguez, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying court fees. A magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a statute requiring courts to review certain complaints filed by incarcerated people. The magistrate judge concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and recommended dismissal without prejudice. The recommendation also stated that Rodriguez’s fee-waiver application should be denied as moot.

Rodriguez objected. He appeared to believe that the case had been dismissed because he had not paid the filing fee. He also objected to dismissal without prejudice and asked that future proceedings not be assigned to the same magistrate judge. The opinion states that Rodriguez did not challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions.

Court’s analysis

The district court explained that the recommended dismissal was based on the insufficiency of Rodriguez’s legal claims, not on an unpaid filing fee. The court explained that dismissal without prejudice permits a party to file a new lawsuit, while dismissal with prejudice bars a later suit on the same claim. The court also stated that a litigant has no right to select the judge assigned to the case.

The district court independently reviewed the relevant filings, records, and proceedings. It agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the complaint failed to state a claim. Because the case was resolved through statutory screening for failure to state a claim, the court did not reach the underlying merits of the claims.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Rodriguez’s objection and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court dismissed Rodriguez’s complaint without prejudice and denied his application to proceed without paying fees as moot. It ordered Rodriguez to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, $317.67, through the payment procedure described in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Clerk was directed to notify the authorities at the institution where Rodriguez was confined and to provide Rodriguez copies of specified filings.

The opinion contains inconsistent document numbers: earlier sections identify the objection and report and recommendation as Documents 10 and 9, while the conclusion refers to Documents 15 and 12.