Brandsrud v. Hespenheide

Background

Scott Brandsrud filed a complaint against Dawn Hespenheide, Donald Hedlund, Edward Christian, and Hennepin County Court. The matter concerned challenges to Minnesota state probate-court decisions. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissal without prejudice because Brandsrud had not paid the filing fee.

Brandsrud objected to the recommendation. He asserted that he had paid the fee and submitted documents purporting to show a cashier’s check dated April 24, 2023, and a United Parcel Service mailing receipt showing that something was mailed to the Clerk of Court on April 27, 2023. The court stated that it had not received the filing fee for this matter, although Brandsrud had paid the full fee in another matter filed in the District of Minnesota.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the disputed portions of the recommendation independently, as required when a party makes specific objections. It adopted the recommendation and concluded that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) was appropriate because Brandsrud had not paid the filing fee. Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court requirements.

The court also stated that dismissal likely would have been appropriate for other reasons. It said the complaint was substantively identical to one filed in another matter and that the two new lawsuits represented the second and third attempts to challenge the same state-court probate decisions. The court referred to a prior related proceeding in which Brandsrud’s claims had been dismissed as barred by res judicata, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims already resolved.

The court considered whether to impose restrictions on future filings because of possible abuse of the judicial process. It explained that federal courts may impose reasonable restrictions on litigants who repeatedly file non-meritorious or abusive actions, including requiring court approval before future lawsuits are filed. The court did not impose those restrictions in this order. Instead, it warned Brandsrud that continuing to pursue previously rejected claims arising from the probate matter could result in restricted filing privileges, requiring court permission or the assistance of counsel for additional lawsuits about that matter.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson adopted the Report and Recommendation. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.