King v. Bellinger
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
King v. Bellinger
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Arron King, Civ. No. 24-2432 (JWB/JFD)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bellinger, Officer DOC,
Defendant.
Arron King, pro se Plaintiff.
On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff Arron King filed a Complaint alleging he was forced
to do pushups in the nude with 16 other inmates, as well as suffered other forms of sexual
harassment, at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Willow River. (Doc. No. 1.) Magistrate
Judge John F. Docherty directed King to either pay the necessary filing fee or apply for in
forma pauperis status, and noted that King had failed to take such steps in twelve recently
filed lawsuits. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) If King did not comply within 21 days, the Magistrate
Judge warned, the case would be recommended for dismissal for failure to prosecute
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Id. at 1–2.) King provided no response, and on August 26,
2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising for
dismissal. (Doc. No. 4.)
King’s objection to the R&R asks that his tardiness be excused, and to extend the
applicable statute of limitations by one year, because he has been unable to access legal
materials while incarcerated. (Doc. No. 5.) Because King objects to the sole basis of the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, the R&R is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Additionally, King’s objection is entitled to liberal construction since he is a pro se litigant. Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). There are two issues with King’s objection. First, King has been directly provided ample instruction on how to pay the required filing fee or proceed in forma pauperis in federal court. (Doc. No. 3 at 1–2.) Second, there is no basis to prospectively toll any statute of limitations. For those reasons, King’s tardiness will not be excused, and his objection is overruled.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in the case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Arron King’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 5) is OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 4) is ACCEPTED; and
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
Date: October 10, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Arron King, Civ. No. 24-2432 (JWB/JFD)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bellinger, Officer DOC,
Defendant.
Arron King, pro se Plaintiff.
On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff Arron King filed a Complaint alleging he was forced
to do pushups in the nude with 16 other inmates, as well as suffered other forms of sexual
harassment, at Minnesota Correctional Facility-Willow River. (Doc. No. 1.) Magistrate
Judge John F. Docherty directed King to either pay the necessary filing fee or apply for in
forma pauperis status, and noted that King had failed to take such steps in twelve recently
filed lawsuits. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) If King did not comply within 21 days, the Magistrate
Judge warned, the case would be recommended for dismissal for failure to prosecute
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Id. at 1–2.) King provided no response, and on August 26,
2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising for
dismissal. (Doc. No. 4.)
King’s objection to the R&R asks that his tardiness be excused, and to extend the
applicable statute of limitations by one year, because he has been unable to access legal
materials while incarcerated. (Doc. No. 5.) Because King objects to the sole basis of the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, the R&R is reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Additionally, King’s objection is entitled to liberal construction since he is a pro se litigant. Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). There are two issues with King’s objection. First, King has been directly provided ample instruction on how to pay the required filing fee or proceed in forma pauperis in federal court. (Doc. No. 3 at 1–2.) Second, there is no basis to prospectively toll any statute of limitations. For those reasons, King’s tardiness will not be excused, and his objection is overruled.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in the case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Arron King’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 5) is OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 4) is ACCEPTED; and
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY
Date: October 10, 2024 s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown