Gooden v. State of Iowa
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-02835
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Gooden v. State of Iowa, Judge Magnuson dismissed the case without prejudice as frivolous after finding improper venue and denied related requests.
The dismissal affected Clifford Arnell Gooden, III; Carlos G. Byrd; and Devonte A. Tracy. Gooden’s requests to proceed without prepaying fees and for appointed counsel were denied, his amendment motions were denied as moot, and he was ordered to pay the unpaid $350 filing-fee balance. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the defendants were not required to litigate the claims in this action.
What happened
Clifford Arnell Gooden, III, Carlos G. Byrd, and Devonte A. Tracy sued the State of Iowa and numerous other defendants. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Gooden filed it in the wrong venue and said he did not want to pursue it in the proper venue. The recommendation also found the action frivolous because the other two plaintiffs had not signed the complaint or shown that they qualified to proceed without paying filing fees, and because the complaint had other defects.
Gooden later sought to amend the lawsuit, but that filing did not specifically object to the recommendation. The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It adopted the recommendation, denied Gooden’s request to proceed without paying fees and his request for appointed counsel, and denied as moot two motions to amend the lawsuit.
Judge Magnuson ordered that the action be deemed frivolous and dismissed without prejudice. He also ordered Gooden to pay the unpaid $350 statutory filing fee under the required payment procedure and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the authorities at the institution where Gooden is confined.
The detailed version
- Gooden v. State of Iowa · No. 0:22-cv-02835
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 19, 2022
Background
Clifford Arnell Gooden, III; Carlos G. Byrd; and Devonte A. Tracy brought this action against the State of Iowa and other defendants, including judges, prosecutors, jail personnel, a sheriff, and an attorney. The matter came before the district court on Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz’s Report and Recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation recommended dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because Gooden filed the lawsuit in an improper venue. It also recommended deeming the action frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The stated reasons included Gooden’s contention that he did not want to pursue the case in the proper venue, the fact that Byrd and Tracy had not signed the complaint or established eligibility to proceed without prepaying fees, and other flaws in the complaint.
Court’s Review
Three days after the Report and Recommendation issued, Gooden filed a document seeking to amend his claims and again stating that he could not bring the lawsuit in the appropriate venue. The filing did not mention the Report and Recommendation or state a specific objection, and the deadline for objections passed. Because no specific objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s reasoning.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Gooden’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs and denied his motion to appoint counsel. It denied as moot Gooden’s motion for leave to amend the lawsuit to add plaintiffs, issues, and defendants, and denied as moot his motion to amend or provide supplemental issues in support of the pending lawsuit.
The court deemed the matter frivolous and dismissed it without prejudice. It also ordered Gooden to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, stated as $350, in the manner required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and directed the Clerk of Court to notify the authorities at the institution where Gooden is confined. Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered judgment entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.