Husten v. Roy et al

Filing 62

ORDER: Plaintiff's motions to amend [Docket Nos. 42 and 43 ] are DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time [Docket No. 6 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment [Docket No. 48 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [Docket No. 49 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No. 58 ] is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 3/21/2018. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael John Husten,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-3366 (JNE/SER)
ORDER

Minnesota Department of Corrections; Tom
Roy; Dr. David A. Paulson, M.D.; Dr.
Stephen Craane, M.D.; Kathy Reid, H.S.A.;
Centurion Health Services Provider; Jane
Doe, director of operations for MINNCOR
Industries at MCF - Oak Park Heights;
Steve Hamann; Bruce Reiser; Michelle
Smith; Tammy Wherley; John Doe Hobson,
chaplain at MCF - Stillwater; John Does,
correctional officers in the segregation
housing unit at MCF - Oak Park Heights;
John Doe Weber, correctional officer
sergeant at MCF - Oak Park Heights; Mary
Tschida; Michael Costello; Kevin Monio;
Nicole Mulvehill; Jane Doe Henry,
mailroom worker at MCF - Oak Park
Heights; John/Jane Does, department
supervisors of the mailroom at MCF - Oak
Park Heights; David Reishus; Jeanne
Michels; Sue Lebenow; Sue Farmer;
Cassidy Pike; John Doe Uran, correctional
officer lieutenant at MCF - Oak Park
Heights; Eddie Miles; Jane/John Doe,
associate warden operations at MCF Stillwater; and Randy Leiffort,
Defendants.
In a Report and Recommendation dated February 15, 2018, the Honorable Steven
E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Plaintiff’s motions to amend,
motion for extension of time, motion for summary judgment or partial summary

1

judgment, and motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. The magistrate judge
also recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice. No objection to the
Report and Recommendation has been received.
Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel after the magistrate judge
issued the Report and Recommendation. In a declaration that Plaintiff filed to support
the motion, he stated that he is incarcerated, that he believes he has meritorious claims,
that he has chronic organ diseases, that he is facing a deadline to submit a petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012), and that he is no longer capable of representing himself.
The Court has reviewed the record. Based on that review, the Court accepts the
recommended disposition. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that appointment of counsel is
appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (2012); Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942-43
(8th Cir. 2013). The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s motions to amend [Docket Nos. 42 and 43] are DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time [Docket No. 46] is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment
[Docket No. 48] is DENIED.

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order [Docket No. 49] is
DENIED.

5.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No. 58] is DENIED.

2

6.

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 21, 2018
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

3