Hansen v. Minnesota, State of et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Keyes's Report and Recommendation 14 is ADOPTED; Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second a mendment complaint 10 is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs proposed second amendment complaint 11 be filed by the Clerk of Court as a Second Amended Complaint; Plaintiff's Second Motion For Leave To Afford The Second Amended Complaint, To Be Prepared And Proof Read By An Attorney Or Any Other Volunteer 13 is GRANTED, and the pleading attached to that motion be filed by the Clerk of Court as a Third Amended Complaint; and This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3)(2)(B)(ii).(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 05/16/2011. (jmf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Laura Hansen,

Civil No. 10-3618 (SRN/JJK)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

State of Minnesota, et al.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated January 27, 2011 (Doc. No. 14). Plaintiff Laura
Hansen filed timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 23.)
This Court has conducted a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which
Plaintiff has made specific objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
D. Minn. L.R. 72.02(b). Based on its review, this Court adopts the R&R.
This Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections largely suffer from the same lack of
clarity and intelligibility that Magistrate Judge Keyes noted with respect to her other
filings. It appears clear, however, that Plaintiff misunderstands the Court’s direction that
certain of her submissions “be filed by the Clerk of Court.” Plaintiff objects to what she
perceives to be the Court’s direction that the Clerk of Court, rather than Plaintiff, file the
particular submissions at issue. The Court, however, is thereby simply directing the Clerk
of Court to accept Plaintiff’s submissions as validly filed by Plaintiff.1
1

This Court further notes that Plaintiff purported to add additional defendants
when filing her First Amended Complaint. On April 4, 2011, Plaintiff also filed–after Magistrate
Judge Keyes issued his R&R recommending that her second and third amended complaints be
(continued...)

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Keyes’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14] is

ADOPTED;
2.

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is

DENIED;
3.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amendment complaint [Doc. No.

10] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s proposed second amendment complaint [Doc. No. 11]
be filed by the Clerk of Court as a “Second Amended Complaint”;
4.

Plaintiff’s “Second Motion For Leave To Afford The ‘Second Amended

Complaint,’ To Be Prepared And Proof Read By An Attorney Or Any Other Volunteer”
[Doc. No. 13] is GRANTED, and the pleading attached to that motion be filed by the
Clerk of Court as a “Third Amended Complaint”; and,
5.

This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3)(2)(B)(ii).

Dated: May 16, 2011
s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Court Judge

1

(...continued)
filed–yet another complaint (Doc. No. 20), identifying two further purported defendants. Insofar
as the record to date does not disclose that any of the purported defendants have been served and
because this Court now orders that the entire action is dismissed, any issue of the proper
defendants in this action is now moot.
2