Block v. United States Government
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Block v. United States Government, Judge Docherty granted fee-waiver status, denied counsel, and recommended denying injunctive relief while directing service.
Waylen Block, the defendants identified in the caption, the unnamed officials treated as John or Jane Doe defendants, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Block’s fee-waiver application was granted; his two counsel motions were denied without prejudice; and his request for injunctive relief was recommended for denial.
What happened
In Block v. United States Government, the court allowed Waylen Block to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve several defendants.
Block asked the court to appoint a lawyer and sought an order requiring prison officials to handle certain court correspondence as legal mail in his presence. The court also addressed service for the United States, the Bureau of Prisons, and several named defendants; unnamed officials were treated as John or Jane Doe defendants for now.
The court denied both requests for appointed counsel without prejudice and recommended denying Block’s request for injunctive relief because the defendants had not been given notice. Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued this order and recommendation, which was not directly appealable unless adopted as an order or judgment.
The detailed version
- Block v. United States Government · No. 0:23-cv-00127
- John Tunheim
- May 12, 2023
Background
Waylen Block filed an amended complaint against the United States Government, the Bureau of Prisons, a warden, other prison officials, and several individuals identified by their positions or names. The court noted that the amended complaint and summons list supplied the defendant list. Because Block did not identify specific individuals for the acting warden, acting associate wardens, acting unit manager, acting medical director, and acting captain, the court treated those people as John or Jane Doe defendants for now.
Rulings and directions
The court granted Block’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It directed him to complete U.S. Marshals Service Form USM-285 for the Bureau of Prisons and seven individually named defendants. If he did not return the forms within 30 days of the order’s date, the court stated that it would recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court directed the Marshals Service to serve the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1), the Bureau of Prisons under Rule 4(i)(2) after receiving the forms, and the seven individual defendants in their individual capacities under Rule 4(e).
The court denied both of Block’s motions for appointment of counsel without prejudice to filing another motion as the case proceeds. It explained that civil litigants generally have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel and found, at this early stage, that the case did not appear especially complex, Block could investigate the relevant facts, he had expressed his allegations adequately, and conflicting testimony did not appear likely to create difficulty.
The court construed Block’s motion seeking requirements for prison officials’ handling of correspondence with the Clerk of Court as a request for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order issued before final judgment. The court recommended that the motion be denied because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1) requires notice to the opposing party before issuing a preliminary injunction, and the record did not show that any defendant had received notice. The court also stated that, if the motion were treated as a request for a temporary restraining order, it would recommend denial because the required procedures had not been met and the motion did not seriously analyze the relevant factors.
Status of the recommendation
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty signed an Order and Report and Recommendation dated May 11, 2023. The notice stated that the recommendation was not itself an order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.