Tepoel v. Conley et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of MAGISTRATE JUDGE and denying 2 Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Daniel Thomas Tepoel. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on August 6, 2017. (JMK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-939 (JRT/HB)
DANIEL THOMAS TEPOEL,
WILLIAM M. CONLEY, in his personal
capacity, JANE DOE CONLEY, husband
and wife and their marital community,
BARBARA B. CRABB, in her personal
capacity, JOHN DOE CRABB, husband and
wife and their marital community, JOHN
WILLIAM VAUDREUIL, in his personal
capacity, JANE DOE VAUDREUIL,
husband and wife and their marital
community, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, and U.S. DISTRICT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
Daniel Thomas TePoel, No. 06413-090, Federal Prison Camp-Duluth,
P.O. Box 1000, Duluth, MN 55814, pro se.
Plaintiff Daniel Thomas TePoel is currently serving a sentence for a wire fraud
conviction at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota. TePoel filed this civil
action against two federal judges and a federal prosecutor, along with an application to
proceed without prepayment of fees, on March 27, 2017. (Compl., Mar. 27, 2017,
Docket No. 1.) United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer reviewed TePoel’s action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), which directs the court to “review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.”
If the court finds the complaint “frivolous,
malicious, or [that it] fails to state a claim,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) directs the court to
dismiss the complaint. On April 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), finding TePoel alleged frivolous and malicious claims, and
recommending the Court summarily dismiss the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (R&R
at 3, Apr. 7, 2017, Docket No. 3.)
Upon the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, a party may “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). On April 13, 2017, TePoel filed objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. (Specific Objs. for the R., Apr. 13, 2017, Docket No. 4.)
TePoel, however, does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion;
TePoel instead objects to the docket’s descriptions of his action, his complaint, and his
name. (Id. at 1-2.)
TePoel also filed an Amended Complaint, which provided further discussion of his
action. (Am. Bill in Equity, Apr. 24, 2017, Docket No. 5.) This new filing does not save
TePoel’s action. Indeed, TePoel’s new allegations only confirm the Magistrate Judge’s
suspicion that TePoel is improperly attempting to challenge his conviction using this civil
action. (See R&R at 3 n.1.) For example, TePoel alleges that his conviction is “void for
failure to comply with constitutional requirements” and that he “must be exonerated and
released.” (Am. Bill in Equity at 8, 11.) Accordingly, to the extent TePoel clarified his
allegations, they are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, under which a prisoner-plaintiff cannot
maintain a claim for damages that “would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” unless
the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Because the Court finds TePoel’s specific objections are irrelevant to the
conclusions reached in the R&R and the Magistrate Judge properly found TePoel’s action
fails under § 1915A, the Court will overrule TePoel’s objections, adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R, and dismiss TePoel’s action.
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court OVERRULES Plaintiff Daniel Thomas TePoel’s objections [Docket No. 4] and
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 3].
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
TePoel’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees
or Costs [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.
TePoel is ordered to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee for
this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), with an initial partial
filing fee of $19.63 due and payable immediately, and the Clerk of Court is directed to
provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where TePoel is
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED: August 6, 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?