Kunshier v. Dayton
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:16-cv-00792
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kunshier v. Walz, Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendation, denied several requests, granted one motion, and directed judgment.
The order directly affected petitioner Robert A. Kunshier by denying his request to proceed without paying filing fees, denying his requests for appointed counsel, denying as moot his motion to lift the stay, and granting his motion concerning communications. It also confirmed the substitution of Tim Walz and Jodi Harpstead for the officials originally named in the case.
What happened
In Kunshier v. Walz, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party objected. The recommendation concerned Robert A. Kunshier’s requests in his case against Minnesota officials and the State of Minnesota.
The court found no clear error and accepted the recommendation. It denied Kunshier’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, denied his requests for appointed counsel, and denied as moot his request to lift a stay. It granted his motion asking whether the respondents’ lawyers had received improper communications, as explained in the recommendation.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that no certificate of appealability issue and directed entry of judgment. The order did not decide the underlying legal claims.
The detailed version
- Kunshier v. Dayton · No. 0:16-cv-00792
- Eric Tostrud
- Dec. 30, 2022
Background
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on December 8, 2022. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake rather than conducting a full reconsideration of the matter.
The footnote explains that Mark Dayton and Emily Johnson Piper were originally named as respondents in their official capacities. They were automatically replaced in the case by Tim Walz and Jodi Harpstead, the current holders of those offices, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Rulings
The court found no clear error and accepted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Robert A. Kunshier’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied his motions for appointment of counsel. It denied as moot his motion to lift the stay, meaning the court found that request no longer required a ruling.
The court granted Kunshier’s motion asking the court to determine whether the courts had granted respondents’ counsel permission to communicate outside the presence of the other side, as explained in the Report and Recommendation. The court also ordered that no certificate of appealability issue and directed entry of judgment.
Effect of the Order
This was a procedural order addressing Kunshier’s filing-fee request, requests for counsel, motion to lift the stay, and motion concerning communications. The opinion does not explain or decide the underlying legal claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.