Nelson v. Ellison
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:23-cv-02031
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nelson v. Ellison, Judge Tostrud dismissed the action without prejudice, denied cost-free filing and amendment requests, and overruled Nelson’s objections.
The ruling ended Chad Nicholas Nelson’s action against Keith Ellison and Carrie Sperling, while dismissing the action without prejudice. It also denied Nelson’s request to proceed without prepaying costs and his request to amend the complaint.
What happened
Nelson v. Ellison involved Chad Nicholas Nelson’s complaint against Keith Ellison and Carrie Sperling. Nelson filed the case without a lawyer, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissing it because the suit was not legally cognizable.
Nelson objected to that recommendation and asked to amend his complaint. The district court independently reviewed the recommendation and concluded that the magistrate judge’s analysis was correct.
Judge Tostrud overruled Nelson’s objections and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also denied Nelson’s application to proceed without prepaying costs and denied his request to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendment would not fix the complaint’s defects and Nelson did not provide the required proposed complaint or describe the new claims or parties.
The detailed version
- Nelson v. Ellison · No. 0:23-cv-02031
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
Chad Nicholas Nelson filed a complaint without a lawyer against Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, and Carrie Sperling, Assistant Attorney General, Conviction Review Unit. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s underlying allegations. Magistrate Judge Leo Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation—a proposed ruling for the district judge—recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice because the suit was not legally cognizable.
Nelson filed timely objections. He also moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment was not included with the motion, and Nelson did not describe the new claims or parties he intended to add.
Court’s Analysis
Because Nelson objected, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation independently under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The court concluded that Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s analysis and conclusions were correct.
The court also determined that amendment would be futile, meaning the proposed changes would not cure the defects in the original complaint. In addition, the court noted that Nelson had not supplied a copy of the proposed amended complaint or described the new claims or parties, as required by Local Rule 15.1(b).
Disposition
The court overruled Nelson’s objections; dismissed the action without prejudice; denied Nelson’s application to proceed without prepaying costs; and denied his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.