Okeayainneh v. Star Tribune Media Company, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Reconsider. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Julian Okeayainneh's motion to reconsider 15 is GRANTED. 2. The judgment entered on November 16, 2012 13 is VACATED. 3. The order of November 16, 2012 12 is VACATED. 4. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron for further proceedings in light of this order. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on December 5, 2012. (clg) CC: Julian Okeayainneh on 12/5/2012 (MMP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH,

Case No. 12-CV-2200 (PJS/JSM)

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY,
LLC; DAVID CHANEN, publisher; and
DAN BROWNING, publisher,
Defendants.

Julian Okeayainneh, plaintiff pro se.
On October 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The parties had until November 14, 2012 to object to the
R&R. Having received no objection at that time, the Court adopted the R&R on November 16,
2012 [ECF No. 12] and entered judgment in this case [ECF No. 13]. Plaintiff Julian
Okeayainneh now moves for the Court to reconsider that order and vacate the judgment. ECF
No. 15.
Okeayainneh’s objection to the R&R was not received until November 19, 2012.
Ordinarily, an objection submitted after the filing deadline would be considered untimely. But
because Okeayainneh is a pro se inmate, the timeliness of his objection must be considered in
light of the prison-mailbox rule established by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988). Houston held that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on the
day that it is delivered to prison officials for forwarding to the court. Id. at 270. The Eighth
Circuit has not explicitly extended Houston’s prisoner-mailbox rule to filings other than notices

of appeal, but the court has implied that the rule should extend to a pro se prisoner’s objection to
an R&R. Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 169 (8th Cir. 1995). Other circuits have held that the
rule does indeed apply to the filing of an objection to an R&R. See Thompson v. Rasberry, 993
F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989).
This Court agrees and finds that the prison-mailbox rule applies here. Okeayainneh’s
objection was due on November 14, 2012. His certificate of service reflects that his objection
was deposited by Okeayainneh into the care of prison officials for delivery to the Court on
November 9, 2012. See ECF No. 14-3. Thus, under the prison-mailbox rule, Okeayainneh’s
objection was timely filed.
As for the merits of Okeayainneh’s objection: The R&R recommended that the case be
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Specifically, the R&R noted
that Okeayainneh was ordered on September 17, 2012 to pay a partial filing fee of $20 within
20 days. The Court did not receive — and still has not received — that payment, and the R&R
accordingly recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice. In his objection,
Okeayainneh submits evidence suggesting that the Court has not received the money because of
the failure of prison staff to forward the fee from his prison account, despite his repeated
requests. Although the documents submitted by Okeayainneh are not crystal clear, see ECF
No. 14-1, they do appear to corroborate his objection. In light of the evidence submitted by
Okeayainneh regarding his attempts to pay the fee, the Court will vacate its judgment [ECF
No. 13] and previous order [ECF No. 12] in this matter. The Court emphasizes, however, that
Okeayainneh is not excused from paying the filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)

-2-

going forward, and that failure to make payments towards the filing fee may still be grounds for
dismissal of Okeayainneh’s complaint in the future.
Finally, the Court notes that, contrary to Judge Mayeron’s order of September 17, 2012
[ECF No. 6], Okeayainneh’s complaint is not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires
screening of prisoner complaints seeking “redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.” Okeayainneh’s complaint is not directed at a governmental
entity, officer, or employee, and thus § 1915A is inapposite. Okeayainneh’s complaint may,
however, be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) if the Court finds that the complaint
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, this case is remanded for a
determination of whether Okeayainneh’s complaint states a valid claim for relief.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Julian Okeayainneh’s motion to reconsider [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.

2.

The judgment entered on November 16, 2012 [ECF No. 13] is VACATED.

3.

The order of November 16, 2012 [ECF No. 12] is VACATED.

4.

The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron for further
proceedings in light of this order.

Dated: December 5, 2012

s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge

-3-