Martin v. State of Minnesota et al
Filing
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Written Opinion). 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United StatesMagistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated May 30, 2014 22 ; 2. Defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is DENIED; and 3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 7/2/14. (KMW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SCHAARON MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, and
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,
Defendants.
ORDER
Criminal File No. 14‐8 (MJD/SER)
Schaaron Martin, pro se.
Defendants have not yet answered.
The above‐entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau, dated May
30, 2014 [Docket No. 22]. No objections have been filed to that Report and
Recommendation in the time period permitted.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Rau dated May 30, 2014.
1
Courts hold pro se pleadings like Plaintiff’s to a less stringent standard
than those drafted by lawyers, and all documents filed pro se must be liberally
construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520‐21 (1972); Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Nevertheless, “pro se litigants are not excused from
complying with substantive and procedural law,” and they must comply with
court orders. Senter v. Ross, Civil No. 06‐2707, 2007 WL 2362515, at *4 (D. Minn.
Aug. 15, 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Frey, 806
F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986)).
The Court has the inherent authority to sanction a party acting “in bad
faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 33 (1991); see Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255, 1259 (8th Cir.
1993). Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to, imposition of monetary
fines, dismissal of actions, and “other sanctions appropriate for conduct which
abuses the judicial process.” Harlan, 982 F.2d at 1259 (citing Chambers, 501 U.S.
at 44‐45) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Over the course of this matter, Plaintiff has called the chambers of this
Court numerous times and has sent many unsolicited email messages to the
Court and to several attorneys. In its May 12, 2014 Order, the Court found
2
Plaintiff’s contact with the Court in this manner to be impermissible, and the
Court instructed Plaintiff to cease this practice, and has informed her of the
proper means for filing and expressing her legal arguments to the Court and the
parties to this action. (See Order, Docket No. 18.) The Court also warned
Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order could result in a range of
sanctions. Plaintiff, however, has failed to comply. Therefore, the present Order
constitutes Plaintiff’s second notice that, should she continue to communicate
with the Court in such an impermissible manner, her actions may result in
imposition of the sanctions described above and in the May 12, 2014 Order.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated May 30, 2014 [Docket No. 22];
2. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Docket No. 2]
is DENIED; and
3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 2, 2014
s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?