Thomas v. Dakota County Law Enforcement Center et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Proceed & Refute Bill of Costs 209 ; OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection 212 ; DENYING without prejudice as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Writ O Cert iorari with U.S. Supreme Court 215 ; DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Entitled One Free Copy 216 ; DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Revival, Motion to Stay Cost 219 (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 11/21/2017. (JMK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 15-2197 (JRT/KMM)
DESEAN LAMONT THOMAS,
PASTOR JAMES BZOSKIE,
LIEUTENANT LAWERENCE HEART,
DAKOTA COUNTY MN, LIEUTENANT
BENJAMIN VERBY, CAPTAIN
RICHARD SCHROEDER, and
COMMANDER DAN SCHEUERMANN,
DeSean Lamont Thomas, 228679, Minnesota Correctional Facility - Rush
City, 7600 - 525th Street, Rush City, MN 55069, pro se.
Helen R. Brosnahan and Jeffrey A. Timmerman, DAKOTA COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033, for
On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff DeSean Lamont Thomas filed an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that, while in custody at the Dakota County Jail, Defendants
Pastor James Bzoskie, Lieutenant Lawrence Heart, Lieutenant Benjamin Verby, and
Dakota County (“Defendants”) violated Thomas’s constitutional rights. (Compl., Apr.
29, 2015, Docket No. 1; Second Am. Compl., Aug. 11, 2016, Docket No. 115.) On
August 14, 2017, the Court granted summary judgement for Defendants. (Mem. Op. &
Order, Aug. 14, 2017, Docket No. 204.)
requests, and other documents.
Thomas filed several post-trial motions,
BILL OF COSTS
Defendants sought to recover $1,731.75 in costs from Thomas under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). (Bill of Costs, Aug. 16, 2017, Docket No. 206.) The Clerk
allowed $1,656.75 and entered a cost judgment accordingly. (Cost Judgment, Oct. 5,
2017, Docket No. 214.)
On August 25, 2017 – after Defendants filed their Bill of Costs but before the
Clerk entered the cost judgment – Thomas filed a “Request for Permission to Proceed &
Refute Bill of Costs.” (Request, Aug. 25, 2017, Docket No. 209.) In it, Thomas states
that the Defendants “voluntarily wasted their resources on a tactical failure, which
resulted in a waste that the Plaintiff should not be responsible for,” that he may still
prevail on appeal, and that this action was neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith. (Id.
at 1-2.) Thomas asks the Court for relief from the Bill of Costs. (Id. at 2.)
Local Rule 54.3(c)(3) provides:
(3) Review of clerk’s action.
(A) Within 14 days after the clerk taxes costs, a party
may file and serve a motion and supporting documents
for review of the clerk’s action.
(B) Within 14 days after being served with the motion
for review, a party may file and serve a response.
(C) Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must not
file reply brief.
D. Minn. LR 54.3(c)(3). The Local Rules afford Thomas the opportunity to seek review
of the cost judgment. But Thomas did not file a request for review within 14 days of
entry of the cost judgment, meaning that Thomas has waived his ability to challenge the
cost judgment under the Local Rules. The Court will thus deny Thomas’s request.
Moreover, Thomas’s request – to the extent that it can be construed as a request for
review of the cost judgment – contains no “supporting documents” that show why the
Court should deny Defendants the costs to which Rule 54(d) presumes they are entitled.
See Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 472 F.3d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 2006). “To rebut the
presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to recover all of its costs, the district
court must provide a rationale for denying the prevailing party’s claim for costs. . . . A
general statement of fairness is insufficient, without more, to rebut the Rule 54(d)(1)
presumption for an award of costs to the prevailing party.” Id.
MOTION TO SEAL
On September 11, 2017, Thomas filed a request “to seal the case file from public
access” because he “is no longer a Muslim and does not wish to have enclosed
documents to represent his cause.” (Request, Sept. 11, 2017, Docket No. 210.) The
Magistrate Judge denied Thomas’s request, holding that the common-law right to public
access to judicial records in civil proceedings is not outweighed by the interests that
would be served by maintaining confidentiality of the information that Thomas seeks to
be sealed. (Order at 1-2, Sept. 18, 2017, Docket No. 211.) Thomas filed an objection to
the Magistrate Judge’s order. (Obj., Sept. 28, 2017, Docket No. 212.)
Local Rule 5.6 governs the sealing of documents in civil cases. D. Minn. LR 5.6.
A motion to seal documents is a nondispositive motion ordinarily decided by the
magistrate judge. See D. Minn. LR 5.6(d). An objection to the magistrate judge’s order
disposing of a motion regarding sealing of documents is governed by Local Rule 72.2(a).
See D. Minn. LR 5.6(d)(4). 1 A district court’s review of a magistrate judge’s order on
nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.” See Roble v. Celestica Corp., 627 F.
Supp. 2d 1008, 1014 (D. Minn. 2007). This Court will reverse such an order only if it is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §
The Court will overrule Thomas’s Objection. Thomas argues that his “position is
of more importance” then the public’s interest because Thomas’s “right belongs to [him]
in First Amendment c[a]pacities.”
(Obj. at 1.)
The First Amendment protects an
individual’s right to free association, 2 including anonymous association. See NAACP v.
Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-66 (1958). But the First Amendment also protects the
public’s right to access certain judicial proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-75 (1980). “There is [also] a common-law right of access to
judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013).
The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in denying Thomas’s request.
Magistrate Judge “consider[ed] the degree to which sealing” this entire record “would
interfere with the interests served by the common-law right of access,” and the Magistrate
Judge “balance[d] that interference against the salutary interests served by maintaining
Although Local Rule 5.6(d) provides procedures for filing documents under seal in
connection with the filing of a motion, which Thomas’s motion is not, the Court nevertheless
construes Rule 5.6(d)’s procedures to apply to Thomas’s post-trial motion to seal the entire case.
Thomas does not appear to be asserting a First Amendment right of free association.
Rather, he appears to be asserting a First Amendment right that requires the government to
refrain from making publically accessible documents that associated him with a group with
which he no longer wants to associate.
confidentiality” of the entire record. Id. at 1223. The Magistrate Judge found that
Thomas’s request was “too broad,” that his request would “include documents that
formed the basis of the Court’s decisions,” and that Thomas’s decision to no longer
practice Islam is not a “strong ‘countervailing reason’” to justify sealing this entire case.
(Order at 1-2 (quoting IDT, 709 F.3d at 1224).) The Magistrate Judge’s order was not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Court will therefore overrule Thomas’s
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
On October 12, 2017, Thomas filed a “Motion for Leave to File Writ o[f]
Certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court.” (Mot., Oct. 12, 2017, Docket No. 215.) In that
motion, Thomas asks the Court for information and “documents to file certiorari in the
Supreme Court.” (Id. at 2.) First, the Court generally may not aid specific litigants –
even pro se litigants that are incarcerated – by providing legal information or advice
beyond standard notices, routine service of documents, and generally applicable
information, such as the Prisoner Civil Rights Federal Litigation Guidebook, which the
Court already provided Thomas. (Letter at 1, April 13, 2016, Docket No. 63.) Courtprovided aid to a specific litigant in a particular matter risks the appearance that the Court
is not impartial. See United States v. Sturdivant, 420 F. App’x 651, 652 (8th Cir. 2011).
Second, Thomas does not need permission from this Court to file a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. See Sup. Ct. R. 10-14. The Court will
therefore deny Thomas’s motion as moot.
REQUEST FOR FREE COPIES OF COURT RECORDS
Also on October 12, 2017, Thomas filed a “Request for Entitled One Free Copy,”
asking that the Court provide him “1 free copy o[f] all filings.” (Request, Oct. 12, 2017,
Docket No. 216.) Generally, when the Court files a document, the Court mails a copy to
Thomas; and when a Defendant files a document, that Defendant mails a copy to
Thomas. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Beyond that, Thomas is not entitled to free copies of
court filings. On April 13, 2016, the Clerk of Court sent a letter to Thomas stating that,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Thomas’s in forma pauperis status does not entitle Thomas to
free copies of court documents. (Letter at 1.) The Court will therefore deny Thomas’s
THOMAS’S OTHER FILINGS
On October 26, 2017, Thomas filed a document titled “Judicial Notice and
Proclamation,” along with an Affidavit in Support. (Judicial Notice and Proclamation;
Oct. 26, 2017, Docket No. 217; Aff. Supp., Oct. 26, 2017, Docket No. 218.) 3 Thomas
asks for a writ of pluries related to two other matters of his, which have both proceeded to
final judgment: Thomas v. Roy, No. 17-2790 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2017), and Thomas v.
Contaminated Water, No. 17-4017 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2017). Besides the fact that a writ
of pluries is not available either in Minnesota or in federal court, a court may not afford
Thomas’s papers are not stylized as a request or a motion, but to the extent that his
papers request relief from judgments, that request is denied with prejudice. To the extent that his
papers request any other relief, those requests are denied without prejudice.
relief from judgment unless there is mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect,
certain newly discovered evidence, fraud, or if the judgment has been satisfied, released,
or vacated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 4 Thomas’s papers do not provide a justification for
relief from either judgment or the judgment in this action.
On October 30, 2017, Thomas filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for
Revival, and Motion to Stay Cost. (Mot. for Recons., Oct. 30, 2017, Docket No. 219.) 5
A motion to reconsider under Local Rule 7.1(j) is granted “only upon a showing of
compelling circumstances.” D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j); see Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood
Servs., Inc., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1060 (D. Minn. 2001). A motion to reconsider should
not be employed to relitigate old issues, but to “afford an opportunity for relief in
extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
838 F. Supp. 1346, 1347-48 (D. Minn. 1993). Thomas argues that the Court should
reconsider and reopen his case because he did not have any rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment until July 8, 2016 (when Thomas “secur[ed] incorporeal status), in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Thomas is
mistaken. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after, and overruled, the Dred Scott
decision. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 758 (1997) (Souter, J., concurring).
Thomas also makes reference to and cites to provisions from Article III of the
Minnesota Commercial Code. (Proclamation at 1; Aff. at 1-2.) Thomas does not explain, and
the Court cannot surmise, why the Minnesota Commercial Code is relevant to or applies to
Thomas’s § 1983 claim or to any of his post-trial motions.
To the extent that Thomas’s motion of October 30, 2017, is a motion to review the cost
judgment, that motion is both untimely and lacks “supporting documents” sufficient to overcome
the presumption that the prevailing party is entitled to costs under Rule 54(d). D. Minn. LR
Thomas has always been, and remains, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Therefore, Thomas has failed to show compelling circumstances that warrant
reconsideration or reopening of Thomas’s case.
Thomas captions his papers “Young Black Lion a/k/a DeSean Lamont Thomas,”
and states that earlier litigation was “illegally entertained in the fictitious name.” (Aff. at
1-2.) 6 First, Thomas provides no evidence that his legal name is “Young Black Lion”
and not “DeSean Lamont Thomas.” Second, what Thomas asserts – incorrect legal
names – amounts to a “clerical mistake” in the judgments, which the Court could correct
upon a proper showing; but such mistakes are not grounds for relief from final judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); First Nat’l Bank in Sioux Falls v. First Nat’l Bank S.D., No.
06-4101, 2011 WL 835815, at *4 (D.S.D. Mar. 4, 2011), aff’d, 679 F.3d 763 (8th Cir.
2012). To the extent that Thomas relies on an incorrect name as grounds for relief from
judgment, that request is denied.
It appears that Thomas’s references to “Young Black Lion” are to the Minnesota
nonprofit corporation Young Black Lion. Filing was made with the Minnesota Secretary of State
on July 8, 2016, Young Black Lion’s registered agent is Jasmine Conley, and the corporation’s
registered address is 935 St. Anthony Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55104. See Business Record
Details, Young Black Lion, Office of the Minn. Sec’y of State Steve Simon,
https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=f249ed01-3d45-e611816b-00155d01c56d (last visited Nov. 1, 2017). But Thomas provides no information or
evidence connecting him to Young Black Lion. Nor would any such information or evidence
change the outcome of this case or the court’s ruling on Thomas’s motions because a corporation
is a separate legal entity, distinct from Thomas. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 776
N.W.2d 693, 706 (Minn. 2009).
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Request for Permission to Proceed & Refute Bill of Costs
[Docket No. 209] is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Objection [Docket No. 212] is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Writ O Certiorari with U.S. Supreme
Court [Docket No. 215] is DENIED without prejudice as moot.
Plaintiff’s Request for Entitled One Free Copy [Docket No. 216] is
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Revival, Motion to Stay
Cost [Docket No. 219] is DENIED.
DATED: November 21, 2017
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
___________s/John R. Tunheim________
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Court
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?