Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 6, 2024

Bethune v. Schidmt

Judge
David Doty
Docket
0:21-cv-02641
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
6
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bethune v. Baker, Judge Doty lifted stays in three cases and gave Bethune 21 days to pay filing fees or request fee waivers.

Who this affects

Jason Lavet Bethune and his three federal civil actions. The order lifted the stays and reopened the matters administratively, but it did not decide the claims against the defendants. Bethune must pay each filing fee or apply to proceed without paying it within 21 days, or the affected action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

What happened

In Bethune v. Baker, Bethune v. Schidmt, and Bethune v. Knutson, the court had stayed three federal cases while two related state criminal matters proceeded. Bethune had been ordered to tell the court when those matters, including appeals, ended, but he did not do so.

The court reviewed the state-court records and concluded that the criminal matters were complete for practical purposes. It therefore lifted the stays and directed the clerk to reopen the federal cases administratively.

Judge David S. Doty also ordered Bethune, within 21 days, to pay the filing fee in each case or apply to proceed without paying it. The court said it will dismiss any case without prejudice for failure to prosecute if Bethune does neither.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bethune v. Schidmt · No. 0:21-cv-02641
Judge
David Doty
Date
June 6, 2024

Background

Jason Lavet Bethune brought three federal civil actions against the defendants listed in the captions. In a January 2022 order, the court abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine, which generally concerns federal courts refraining from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. Because Bethune's federal actions sought damages, the court stayed them while two Minnesota state criminal matters involving Bethune proceeded.

The January 2022 order also required Bethune to notify the federal court when those state matters, including any appeals, were complete. The court stated that it had received no such notice from Bethune. It independently reviewed the state-court records.

State-court proceedings

In one state case, the state court appointed a public defender, ordered a competency examination, and later found Bethune incompetent to proceed. The state court authorized the Dakota County Attorney's Office to begin civil-commitment proceedings, but a later letter reported that a county social-services screener did not recommend civil commitment at that time. The state case had no later docket entries, and its register of actions listed all three charges as dismissed.

In the other state case, Bethune's request for a public defender was denied because he had previously had and then discharged an appointed attorney. The opinion states that Bethune later pleaded guilty under an agreement to one petty-misdemeanor count of failing to drive with due care. His sentence was continued for dismissal after a three-month probation period, and the register of actions listed the relevant charges as dismissed.

Ruling

The court concluded that Bethune's state-court cases were complete for all practical purposes, so the reasons for the federal stays no longer applied. It ordered that the stays in all three federal matters be lifted and directed the clerk to administratively reopen the cases.

The court separately addressed the filing fees. Bethune had not paid the civil-action filing fee in any of the three matters. His earlier applications to proceed without paying the fees had been dismissed without prejudice in the January 2022 order. For each federal action he wants to continue, Bethune must, within 21 days of the order's date, either pay that action's filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. The court stated that it will dismiss without prejudice any action in which he does neither, for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court did not dismiss any of the three actions in this order and did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-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.