Jones v. Minnesota, State of

Filing 7

ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.Petitioners application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.2.Petitioners action for a Writ of Audita Querela [Docket No. 1] is summarily DISMISSED.3.Petitioners Motion for Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Motion to Correct Errors pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) [Docket No. 6] is DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on November 3, 2011. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Baron Montero Jones,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 11-2501 (JNE/AJB)
ORDER

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

On August 31, 2011, Petitioner filed a document titled “Writ of Audita Querela Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” The matter was referred to the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United
States Chief Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on September 28,
2011. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Petitioner but returned undeliverable. It
was mailed to a different address on October 3, 2011. Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due by October 12, 2011, but due to the error in mailing, the Court
waited 15 days, from the second mailing, for a response. Receiving no objection to the Report
and Recommendation, the Court issued an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation on
October 18, 2011. The same day, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Motion to Correct Errors in Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).” The
motion will be deemed to be an objection to the Report and Recommendation and to be timely
filed. The Court vacates its order issued on October 18, 2011 to consider Petitioner’s objections.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). The
Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Report and
Recommendation is extremely thorough and generous in its treatment of Petitioner’s claims. To
the extent the Petitioner’s objection raises new arguments, they are rejected. In particular, Rule

1

60(a), now cited by Petitioner, provides a mechanism to correct clerical mistakes and mistakes
arising from oversight or omission. Petitioner does not identify any such mistakes—either in the
underlying record or the Report and Recommendation—and the Court perceives none.
Based on its review of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
[Docket No. 3]. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket
No. 2] is DENIED.

2.

Petitioner’s action for a Writ of Audita Querela [Docket No. 1] is
summarily DISMISSED.

3.

Petitioner’s Motion for Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and
Motion to Correct Errors pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) [Docket No. 6]
is DENIED.

Dated: November 3, 2011
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2