Peet v. City of Richfield, Minnesota Police Department et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Grant Application for In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED; and 3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/30/13. (LPH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

John E. Peet,

Case No. 13-cv-782 (SRN/AJB)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

v.
City of Richfield, Minnesota Police Dep’t,
Defendant.

John E. Peet, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, pro se Plaintiff.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Court Judge for

consideration of Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc.
No. 2], Plaintiff’s motion to grant application for in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 4], and Chief
United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan’s May 16, 2013, Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 3]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that: (1)
Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and (2) this action be summarily dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R, denies Plaintiff’s IFP application, and dismisses this case with prejudice.
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to describe a series of disputes between him and his

neighbors and landlord. On several occasions, the police were asked to intervene in these
1 

disputes. Plaintiff now seeks to sue the Richfield, Minnesota, Police Department and three
individual police officers. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his rights under “the
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3617” and “the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b).”
(Compl. ¶ 4 [Doc. No. 1].)
On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Appl. to Proceed in District Ct. without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. No. 2].)
On May 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and that the IFP
application be denied as well. Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R were due by May 31, 2013,
but Plaintiff did not submit any objections. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to
“grant my application for IFP.” (Mot. to Grant Appl. for IFP [Doc. No. 4].)
III.

DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A party “may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s

proposed findings and recommendations.” D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). The district court will
review de novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, and it “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); D.Minn. LR
72.2(b)(3). Ordinarily, the district judge relies on the record of proceedings before the
magistrate judge. D.Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
B. Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of
2 

action on which relief can be granted, because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts, which if
proven true, would establish that any of the named Defendants violated his rights under any
federal laws. (May 16, 2013, Report and Recommendation at 2-3 [Doc. No. 3].) Because
the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal
of this case and denial of Plaintiff’s IFP application. (Id. at 3.)
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to present “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 8(a)(2). To meet this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Although courts should construe civil rights and discrimination claims charitably for pro se
civil litigants, “there is a difference between liberally reading a claim which ‘lacks
specificity,’ [sic] and inventing, ex nihilo, a claim which simply was not made.” Shannon v.
Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 685 (8th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state an actionable claim for relief. As the Magistrate
Judge correctly observed, the allegations in the Complaint “do not describe any acts or
omissions by any of the Defendants that could support any claim against any of them, based
on the statutes cited in the complaint, or any other discernible federal law.” (May 16, 2013,
Report and Recommendation at 2-3 [Doc. No. 3].) Dismissal of this case is therefore
warranted.
Because the district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint at any time it
determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28
3 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP application as well.
IV.

ORDER
The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s May 16, 2013, Report and

Recommendation [Doc. No. 3], which recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP
application and dismiss this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No.
2] is DENIED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Grant Application for In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 4]
is DENIED; and

3.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

October 30, 2013

s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Court Judge

4