Larsen v. State of Minnesota
- Donovan Frank
- 0:21-cv-00568
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Larsen v. State of Minnesota, Judge Foster granted plaintiffs’ continuation motions, denied their fee-waiver application, and ordered payment of a $402 filing fee.
The plaintiffs whose continuation motions were granted remain subject to the requirement that the plaintiffs pay the $402 filing fee within 21 days. Failure to pay may lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order also affects how unrepresented plaintiffs must sign filings made on their behalf.
What happened
In Larsen v. State of Minnesota, the court lifted a stay that had paused the case while an earlier related case was resolved. It asked each plaintiff to say whether they intended to continue, warning that plaintiffs who did not respond could be dismissed for failing to pursue the case. The listed plaintiffs’ motions asking to remain in the case were granted.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it found they could pay the $402 fee without serious hardship. The plaintiffs were given 21 days to pay. If they do not, the court said it will recommend dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to pursue it.
Judge Dulce J. Foster also warned that each unrepresented plaintiff must sign the filings speaking for that plaintiff and that one or a few plaintiffs cannot act as lawyers for the others. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the State of Minnesota or the other defendants.
The detailed version
- Larsen v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:21-cv-00568
- Donovan Frank
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
The court had stayed this matter pending resolution of Karsjens v. Minnesota Department of Human Services. After judgment was entered in that case, the court lifted the stay. Because the stay had lasted more than a year, the court required each plaintiff to notify it whether the plaintiff intended to continue prosecuting this lawsuit. The court had warned that failing to provide the required notice would result in dismissal of that plaintiff without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The order identifies motions by Guy Greene, Anthony Garnett, Jeremy Asher, Daniel Larsen, Jeremy Bilder, Robert Suddeth, Julian Caprice, Dan Wilson, David McGuire, Kevin Karsjens, Joseph Goodwin, Allen Pyron, Brent Nielsen, Terry L. Branson, Anthony Green, and Danny Stone asking the court not to dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute. The court also accepted letters from other plaintiffs stating their intent to continue as valid notices.
Filing Fee
The plaintiffs applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee at the outset. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to pay the fee without undue hardship. Although the plaintiffs were civil detainees and did not have especially large incomes, the court found that they also did not have substantial living expenses. It cited facility-account balances for several plaintiffs as examples of funds available to pay the fee.
Representation Warning
The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires each plaintiff who prosecutes a case without a lawyer to sign every pleading, written motion, and other paper filed for that plaintiff. It noted that very few filings after the initial complaint had been signed by more than one plaintiff. The court therefore stated that the pending motions appeared procedurally improper and warned that one plaintiff or a small group of plaintiffs could not act as lawyers for the others. It also cautioned the plaintiffs about the practical and financial consequences of continuing the case jointly.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered the following:
- The listed plaintiffs’ motions asking the court not to dismiss the matter for failure to prosecute were granted. - The plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. - The plaintiffs must pay the $402 filing fee within 21 days of the order. If they do not, the court will recommend that the matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The order did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.