Canada v. State of Minnesota

Background

Shawn Canada, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action against the State of Minnesota and various prison officials. The court previously denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee because he had accumulated three qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. When Canada did not pay the full filing fee, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The opinion states that the dismissal was without prejudice.

After that dismissal, Canada filed several post-judgment motions and requests. They sought permission to add damages, file motions for an in-person settlement hearing and a protective order, enroll in a witness program, appeal the three-strikes filing-fee ruling, and raise alleged errors in defendants’ conduct. Canada also filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal and the denial of his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Ruling on the Appeal Filing-Fee Request

The court denied Canada’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an incarcerated person who has had three prior federal actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee, unless the person shows that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court stated that Canada and the court agreed he had accumulated three qualifying dismissals. Canada argued generally that he faced imminent danger of slander, defamation, fraud, and another false arrest, and referred to his mental illness and disabilities. The court held that he had not provided the specific facts required to show an ongoing serious physical injury or a pattern of misconduct indicating a likelihood of imminent serious physical injury. It therefore found that his appeal of the denial of filing-fee status was frivolous and denied his application to proceed without paying the appellate fee.

Other Motions and Requests

The court denied Canada’s other outstanding motions and requests for lack of jurisdiction. Because Canada had appealed the order dismissing the action, the court stated that the pending appeal deprived it of authority to consider other aspects of the case.

The court added that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would deny the requests on their merits. It treated the requests as proposed amendments to Canada’s complaint but explained that the action had already been dismissed without prejudice. Canada could refile the complaint with the proposed amendments if he paid the filing fee.

The court also denied as moot Canada’s requests for permission to appeal. It explained that he did not need permission to appeal and only needed to file a notice of appeal, which he had already filed.

Order

Judge Tunheim denied each of the following: Canada’s request to add damages; motion seeking permission to file a motion for a settlement hearing; request to file a motion; request to file a motion to appeal; motion seeking permission to file a motion for an appeal and to raise clear errors; and application to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal.