Braun v. Maslankowski
- Douglas Micko
- 0:23-cv-01784
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Braun v. Maslankowski, Magistrate Judge Micko granted fee-waiver status, denied deposition discovery without prejudice, and recommended denying the moot injunction request.
Nathan Christopher Braun’s immediate requests were resolved: he may proceed without prepaying fees, cannot take the requested depositions at this stage, and received a recommendation denying his injunction request as moot. The opinion did not decide the merits of his claims against the named defendants.
What happened
In Braun v. Maslankowski, Nathan Christopher Braun asked to proceed without paying court fees, sought an order protecting him from certain jail officers, and asked to take depositions before the case’s claims and defendants were settled.
The court granted Braun’s fee-waiver application. It denied his deposition request without prejudice, meaning he may seek permitted discovery later. Because Braun was no longer at the jail, the court recommended denying his request for injunctive relief as moot, meaning the request no longer presented a live dispute.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered the fee-waiver grant and the deposition-motion denial. He issued the injunction ruling as a recommendation, not a final district-court judgment, and said the parties could file objections.
The detailed version
- Braun v. Maslankowski · No. 0:23-cv-01784
- Douglas L. Micko
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
Nathan Christopher Braun filed three motions while the court awaited his amended complaint: an application to proceed without prepaying court fees or costs, a motion for a protective order and temporary injunction, and a petition asking to preserve testimony through depositions. The court had previously ordered Braun to submit an amended complaint and extended his deadline because of difficulties delivering mail to him.
Fee-waiver application
The court found that Braun financially qualified to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and granted his application. The court stated that it would wait to issue orders concerning service until Braun submitted his future filing. It would then review the matter under the federal statutes governing cases filed by people who cannot afford filing fees and the screening of certain prisoner complaints.
Request for injunctive relief
Braun’s filing described alleged events involving him and officers at the Stearns County Jail and stated that he needed protection from the officers’ alleged illegal actions. Although the filing did not specify a particular remedy, the court treated it as a request to prevent the officers from continuing to interact with him.
The court noted that Braun was no longer at the Stearns County Jail and was no longer listed on the jail’s inmate roster. It therefore recommended denying the request for injunctive relief as moot, meaning the court viewed the request as no longer presenting a live issue. The court also stated that, even if the request were not moot, it did not follow the procedures for seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and did not provide the required substantive justification.
Deposition request
Braun asked to depose various people to preserve their testimony. The court denied that motion without prejudice because it was not yet clear what complaint would govern the case or which claims and people would remain after the court’s screening review. The court stated that, if discovery later became necessary, Braun could use the types of discovery—including depositions—allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition and recommendation
Judge Douglas L. Micko ordered that Braun’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was granted and that his petition to preserve testimony through depositions was denied without prejudice. The judge recommended that Braun’s motion for a protective order and temporary injunction be denied as moot. The document was a report and recommendation as to the injunction request, not a final district-court order, and the notice allowed specific written objections within the stated deadlines.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.