Harris v. Ramsey's County's Court's
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00197
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Harris v. Ramsey County’s Courts, Judge Tunheim adopted the recommendation, denied Harris’s fee-waiver application as moot, and required payment of $350.
Joshua Harris must pay the $350 unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, and the institution where he is confined must receive notice of the payment requirement. The order also denies his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot.
What happened
Joshua Harris sued Ramsey County’s Courts, Ramsey County Public Defendant Office, and Adam Goldfine. The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party objected.
The court denied Harris’s application to proceed without paying fees or costs in advance as moot. It also required him to pay the $350 unpaid balance of the filing fee under federal law.
Judge Tunheim ordered the Clerk of Court to notify the authorities at the institution where Harris is confined about the payment requirement.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Ramsey's County's Court's · No. 0:23-cv-00197
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Joshua Harris, who was representing himself, filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. The opinion identifies Ramsey County’s Courts, Ramsey County Public Defendant Office, and Adam Goldfine as defendants.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation on March 14, 2023. No party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake.
Ruling
The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation. It denied Harris’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court also required Harris to pay the unpaid balance of the action’s statutory filing fee, stated as $350, in the manner required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Clerk of Court was ordered to notify the authorities at the institution where Harris is confined about this requirement.
Effect
The order concerns Harris’s filing-fee obligations and does not state a ruling on the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.