Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pederson v. State

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 8, 2017

GRADY PEDERSON, also known as Sonie Two Bear Witko, Plaintiff,


          David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Grady Pederson did not pay the required filing fee for this action, but instead applied for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See ECF No. 2. That IFP application is now before the Court and must be considered before any other action may be taken in this matter.

         After review, the Court concludes that the IFP application cannot be granted for two reasons. First, the application itself is woefully incomplete. Pederson has not provided any information whatsoever about his assets, income, expenses, or anything else about his finances. See ECF No. 2 at 1-5. Without additional information, this Court cannot conclude that Pederson qualifies financially for IFP status.

         Second, even if Pederson had provided sufficient financial information from which to conclude that he qualifies financially for IFP status, this Court would nevertheless recommend that the IFP application be denied and that this action be dismissed, as his complaint is frivolous. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Statutory provisions may simply codify existing rights or powers. Section 1915(d), for example, authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have the power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a frivolous complaint prior to service of process). An action is frivolous if it lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact” if it is based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or factual allegations that are so “fanciful, ” “fantastic, ” or “delusional” as to be “clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (explaining that courts may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous “if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional”) (quotations and citations omitted).

         Pederson's complaint is largely incomprehensible. To the extent that this Court can comprehend what Pederson is alleging at all, it appears that Pederson is attempting to challenge the validity of the requirement imposed by the State of Minnesota that he register as a predatory offender; Pederson may also be seeking to challenge a conviction incurred for failure to register.[1]Cf. State v. Pederson, No. A14-1849, 2015 WL 5089026, at *1 (Minn.Ct.App. Aug. 31, 2015). This is necessarily speculative, however, as Pederson's complaint fails to set forth in a readily understandable manner what, exactly, he is challenging in this litigation. For example, paragraph 7 of Pederson's complaint which comprises the bulk of the factual allegations being raised in this lawsuit reads as follows (sic throughout, except where bracketed):

For the further acts of genocadal abuse and misuses of judicial power to use civil commitment to enforce and abuse judical due process, to circumnavigate the judical due process and violate life limb double jeopardy and to give a life sentence with due process of the law. To enforce charges which were dismissed And to abuse ex post facto enforcement on expired file charges of illegal search seizure phone # [omitted]. Wire tappe survellence. Denial of all basic right to life drove in to poverty.

         Compl. at 4 [ECF No. 1].[2]

         This garble is insufficient to put the defendants or the Court on notice of the specific factual allegations being raised in this action. Further, even taking each of these (conclusory) allegations as true, Pederson provides no basis for this Court to conclude that the specific defendants named to this action the State of Minnesota, four Minnesota judicial districts, and three Minnesota state judges are at fault for the harms alleged in the complaint.[3] There is no arguable basis from the complaint for this lawsuit, against these defendants, to go forward. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice and that the IFP application be denied.


         Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous.
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Grady Pederson [ECF No. 2] be DENIED.


         Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.