Washington v. Uner et al

Filing 14

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 and 7 is DENIED; 2. This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 3. Plaintiff is required to pay the unpa id balance of the court filing fee, namely $344.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); and 4. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this action is dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/26/14. (GRR) (cc: Keith Eugen Washington) Modified on 3/26/2014 (jz).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Keith Eugene Washington,
Plaintiff.
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 13‐3372

Mark Uner, Cheryl Binder
and other correctional officers,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________
The above‐entitled matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated
February 26, 2014.  Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that this matter be
dismissed with prejudice as the claim is time‐barred.  Plaintiff asserts that he had
previously brought a claim based on the same underlying facts, but that the claim
was dismissed without prejudice because he had failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.  Plaintiff now claims that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies.
Assuming that Plaintiff has now exhausted his administrative remedies,
this action is nonetheless time‐barred.  In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in
March 2003, he was assaulted by fellow prison inmates, and that correctional
1

officers had prior knowledge of the assault, and did nothing to protect Plaintiff. 
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s claim is subject to the six year
statute of limitations period set forth in Minn. Stat. § 54.05, subd. 1(5).  Egerdahl
v. Hibbing Comty College, 72 F.3d 615, 618 n. 3 (8th Cir. 1995).  Thus, Plaintiff
had to have brought this action on or before March 2009 for it to be timely‐filed.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the
record.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b).  Based on that review, the Court
will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.  Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket Nos. 2 and
7) is DENIED;
2.  This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b);
3.  Plaintiff is required to pay the unpaid balance of the court filing fee,
namely $344.00, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); and

2

4.  For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this action is dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY

DATED: March 26, 2014.            

s/ Michael J. Davis                                          
MICHAEL J. DAVIS 
Chief Judge

United States District Court

3