Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 5, 2023

Williams v. City of Minneapolis

Judge
Michael Davis
Docket
0:22-cv-02369
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Williams v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Michael J. Davis dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied fee-waiver status as moot, and ordered payment of the remaining filing fee.

Who this affects

Carl S. Williams, who represented himself, was required to pay the unpaid $348.67 filing-fee balance. The complaint against the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota MPD, BP Gas Station, Facebook, Fox, ABC, Star Tribune, and St. Cloud MCF was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

Williams v. City of Minneapolis involved Carl S. Williams’s complaint against the City of Minneapolis and other listed defendants. Williams represented himself, and no defendant had a lawyer formally appear.

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint and denying Williams’s request to proceed without paying court fees in advance. No one objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied Williams’s fee-waiver application as moot. The court also ordered Williams to pay the unpaid $348.67 balance of the filing fee through deductions handled under federal law.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:22-cv-02369
Judge
Michael Davis
Date
Apr. 5, 2023

Background

Carl S. Williams filed a complaint against the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota MPD, BP Gas Station, Facebook, Fox, ABC, Star Tribune, and St. Cloud MCF. The opinion states that Williams was representing himself and that no lawyer had entered an appearance for the defendants.

United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a February 2, 2023 Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the complaint and denial of Williams’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. No timely objections were filed.

Court’s Review

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting the review that would have followed a timely objection. The court reviewed the recommendation and the case record and found no clear error. The opinion does not explain the underlying reason for recommending dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Michael J. Davis adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed Williams’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the order itself did not bar refiling. It denied Williams’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The court also ordered Williams to pay the unpaid balance of the action’s statutory filing fee—$348.67—in the manner required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and directed the clerk to notify the authorities at the institution where Williams was confined. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.