Broussard v. United States of America
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-00893
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Broussard v. United States, Judge Wright denied the habeas petition and injunction motions, denied fee waiver as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Aaron Rhy Broussard was affected because his habeas petition and motions were denied and the action was dismissed without prejudice. The United States of America, the individual respondents, and the U.S. Department of Justice were the respondents in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Broussard v. United States of America, Aaron Rhy Broussard challenged his pre-judgment detention through a petition asking for release or other habeas relief. He also asked to proceed without paying filing fees and sought temporary injunctive relief.
The court concluded that the petition was frivolous, relying on reasons explained in earlier related proceedings. It denied the petition, denied the fee application as moot, and denied both motions for temporary injunctive relief. The action was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal itself did not bar refiling. The court also said an appeal from the dismissal could not be taken in good faith.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright issued the order on April 13, 2022. The order also denied Broussard permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal.
The detailed version
- Broussard v. United States of America · No. 0:22-cv-00893
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 13, 2022
Background
Aaron Rhy Broussard filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court relief from allegedly unlawful detention, challenging his pre-judgment detention. He also filed an application to proceed without paying filing fees and motions seeking a temporary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The respondents were the United States of America; Susan Richard Nelson; Terrence Olstad; Thomas M. Hollenhorst; Melinda A. Williams; Charles J. Novats, Jr.; and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Broussard’s habeas petition was frivolous. Rather than explain that conclusion in detail in this order, the court referred to the reasoning in earlier related proceedings. The court stated that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts supported summary denial, while noting that Broussard’s petition was not filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court explained that those rules could nevertheless be applied under Rule 1(b).
Disposition
The court ordered the following:
- The habeas petition was DENIED. - The application to proceed without paying filing fees was DENIED AS MOOT. - The motions for injunctive relief were DENIED. - The action was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. - The court certified that an appeal from the dismissal could not be taken in good faith and denied Broussard permission to proceed without paying filing fees for such an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.