Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2024

Shortymacknifisent v. State of Minnesota For The Actions David S. Doty, The

Judge
Jeffrey Bryan
Docket
0:24-cv-01283
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent v. State of Minnesota, Judge Bryan dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous and denied the application to proceed without paying fees.

Who this affects

The order ended Shortymacknifisent’s action without prejudice and denied the request to proceed without paying filing fees. The defendants were no longer required to litigate this action after its dismissal.

What happened

Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent sued the State of Minnesota for the actions of David S. Doty, William Bolin, and Keith Ellison. The court considered Shortymacknifisent’s request to proceed without paying filing fees.

The one-page complaint used highly stylized and difficult-to-read writing. The court could not determine the legal theory for the lawsuit or what each defendant allegedly did. It appeared to identify the State of Minnesota, William Bolin, and Keith Ellison as defendants.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice as frivolous and denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan signed the order on April 26, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shortymacknifisent v. State of Minnesota For The Actions David S. Doty, The · No. 0:24-cv-01283
Judge
Jeffrey M. Bryan
Date
Apr. 26, 2024

Background

Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent filed a one-page complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint appeared to name the State of Minnesota, William Bolin, and Keith Ellison as defendants. The court described Bolin as the warden of Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater and Ellison as Minnesota’s attorney general. The complaint apparently sought to hold the State responsible for unspecified actions by U.S. District Judge David S. Doty.

Court’s Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court must deny an application to proceed without paying filing fees and dismiss the action if the complaint is frivolous. The court explained that a complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court found that the complaint’s highly stylized and illegible script made it difficult to understand. It also found that the complaint did not identify the law or legal theory supporting the lawsuit or explain what each defendant allegedly did to violate the law.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It denied Shortymacknifisent’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and directed that judgment be entered. Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan signed the order.

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.