Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Munt v. Roy

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 10, 2019

JOEL MARVIN MUNT, Plaintiff,
v.
TOM ROY, Commissioner of Corrections; EDDIE MILES, STW Warden; VICTOR WANCHENA, Assistant Warden of Administration at STW; CHRIS PAWELK, Assistant Warden of Operations at STW; MIKE WARNER, Lieutenant at STW; SUSAN NORTON, Paralegal at STW; LISA COX, Property Person at STW; STEVEN HAMMER, Warden at STW, each sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

          JOEL MARVIN MUNT, PRO SE

          ORDER

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt, a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility (“MCF”)-Oak Park Heights, asserts retaliation claims against several officials and/or employees of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”). (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].)

         Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP Application”) [Doc. No. 2]; (2) Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. No. 14] to Magistrate Judge Steven Rau's December 4, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 12], staying the case; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) [Doc. No. 3]; and (4) Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Order of Reassignment [Doc. No. 11]. For the reasons set forth the below, Munt's IFP application is granted, his Objections to the December 4, 2018 Order are overruled as moot, his Motion for a TRO is denied, his Motion in Opposition to Order of Reassignment is denied, and the stay is lifted.

         A. In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Application

         1. Munt's IFP Application [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED.

         2. Munt must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form USM-285) for each Defendant. If Munt does not complete and return the Marshal Service Forms within 30 days of this order, this matter will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Munt with Marshal Service Forms.

         3. After the return of the completed Marshal Service Forms, the Clerk of Court is directed to seek waiver of service from Defendants in their personal capacities, consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         4. If a Defendant sued in his or her personal capacity fails without good cause to sign and return a waiver within 30 days of the date that the waiver is mailed, the Court will impose upon that Defendant the expenses later incurred in effecting service of process. Absent a showing of good cause, reimbursement of the costs of service is mandatory and will be imposed in all cases in which a Defendant does not sign and return a waiver of service form. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

         5. The U.S. Marshal's Service is directed to effect service of process on Defendants in their official capacities as officers or employees of the State of Minnesota consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         6. Munt must pay the unpaid balance ($326.07) of the statutory filing fee for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Clerk of Court shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where Munt is confined.

         B. Objections to December 4, 2018 Order

         As the magistrate judge noted in the December 4, 2018 Order, the claims that Munt raises in the instant litigation are closely related to claims and allegations that he asserted in another lawsuit in this District, Munt v. Roy, No. 17-cv-5215 (SRN/SER). At the time of the December 4, 2018 Order, two Reports and Recommendations (“R & Rs”), and Plaintiff's Objections to the same, were pending in the 17-cv-5215 matter. In the two R & Rs, the magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief be denied. (See generally, Munt, 17-cv-5215 (SRN/SER), June 25, 2018 R & R [Doc. No. 58]; Oct. 15, 2018 R & R [Doc. No. 69].) This Court has since adopted the magistrate judge's R & Rs, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims in the 17-cv-5215 suit. (Munt, 17-cv-5215 (SRN/SER), Jan. 10, 2019 Mem. Op. & Order [Doc. No. 83].)

         In light of the similar, possibly overlapping claims in the two lawsuits, Magistrate Judge Rau stayed further proceedings in the instant case, pending resolution of the undersigned judge's review of Plaintiff's Objections ...


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.