Braun v. State of Minnesota
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Braun v. State of Minnesota
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan Christopher Braun, Case No. 24-cv-3596 (JRT/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
State of Minnesota, Benton County, Jef-
frey R. Raupp, Kathleen Reuter, Dan Mil-
ler, Sam Dougless, Hanna M. Efferfield,
Alexandra Kosiba, and Jaqueline Cross,
Defendants.
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s (1) opening
pleading [ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”)], (2) Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 3 (“IFP Application”)], and (3) Motion for Assistance of Counsel
[ECF No. 5 (“Counsel Motion”)]. For the following reasons, the Court recommends dis-
missing this action as frivolous and denying the IFP Application and Counsel Motion as
moot.
In August 2016, authorities in Minnesota’s Benton County charged Braun with
third-degree criminal sexual conduct. See Compl. 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323
(Minn. Dist. Ct. Aug. 3, 2016). A Benton County jury convicted him in July 2017. See
Verdict Form 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 31, 2017). The
trial court later sentenced Braun to 91 months imprisonment. See Order and Warrant of
Commitment 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 6, 2017).
Authorities apparently released Braun at some point, but the Complaint notes “[r]evocation
[p]roceedings” that occurred in August 2024. Compl. 6. Braun is currently incarcerated
at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater (“MCF-Stillwater”). See Docket.
The Court received the Complaint on September 26, 2024. See Docket. Its nine
defendants include Benton County, the State of Minnesota, the presiding criminal-trial
judge, attorneys involved in his criminal case (including county attorneys and at least one
of Braun’s own former attorneys), the victim of Braun’s misconduct, and Alexandra
Kosiba and Jaqueline Cross, who were apparently witnesses at his trial. See Compl. 1–3,
6; Register of Actions, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). The action’s
thrust is that Braun is innocent and that Defendants’ conduct unconstitutionally led to his
unjust prosecution and conviction. See Compl. 1–7. He seeks monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. at 5–7.
Rather than pay this action’s filing fee, Braun submitted the IFP Application. That
filing suggests that as a financial matter, Braun likely qualifies for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. Furthermore, under the federal statute governing IFP proceedings, a pris-
oner-litigant must generally pay an initial partial filing fee based on financial information
concerning the prisoner’s trust-fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Braun claims that he has been unable to get the necessary information from prison authorities. See Aff. of Pl. 1 [ECF No. 4]. Given this difficulty, the Court will treat Braun as a “plaintiff [with] no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee,” thereby letting this action proceed notwithstanding Braun’s failure to submit an initial partial filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(4). Under28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2), “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss [a case proceeding IFP] at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .” A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); see also, e.g., Jones v. Norris,310 F.3d 610
, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law if it relies on an “inarguable legal conclusion.” Neitzke,490 U.S. at 325
; see also, e.g., McCullough v. Horton,69 F.3d 918, 919
(8th Cir. 1995) (stating that a matter is legally frivolous if “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” (quoting Neitzke,490 U.S. at 327
)). Braun’s claims are frivolous due to the well-established “favorable termination” re- quirement of Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477
(1994). This requirement states that “to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 486–87; see also, e.g., Mitchell v. Kirchmeier,28 F.4th 888
, 895 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Heck). While Heck itself concerned damages claims, later caselaw extends its rule to claims for equitable relief as well. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson,544 U.S. 74
, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalida- tion)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . —if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” (emphasis in original)); Evenstad v. Schnell, No. 20-CV-1464 (WMW/DTS),2022 WL 617598
, at *14 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2022) (quoting Wilkinson), report and recommendation adopted,2022 WL 616962
(D. Minn. Mar. 2, 2022). Nothing in the Complaint suggests a favorable termination of the charges underly- ing Braun’s confinement, so the Court cannot address his claims. The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action as frivolous (without prejudice, in case Braun can later meet the favorable-termination requirement). Given this recommendation, the Court fur- ther recommends denying the IFP Application and Counsel Motion as moot. Braun is also responsible for this action’s filing fee under28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1). The Court therefore
also recommends informing authorities at MCF-Stillwater of this obligation, and authoriz-
ing them to remit monies from Braun’s trust-fund in accordance with § 1915(b)(2) to pay
this action’s filing fee.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the favorable-termination require-
ment of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2. Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s Application to Proceed in Dis-
trict Court Without Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 3] and Motion for As-
sistance of Counsel [ECF No. 5] be DENIED as moot.
3. The institution having custody of Braun (currently the Minnesota Cor-
rectional Facility–Stillwater) be DIRECTED to collect and remit
monthly payments from him for this action’s filing fee in the manner
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Dated: October 24, 2024 s/Tony N. Leung
__________________________________
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
Braun v. State of Minnesota
Case No. 24-cv-3596 (JRT/TNL)
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objec-
tions within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2).
All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local
Rule 72.2(c). Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan Christopher Braun, Case No. 24-cv-3596 (JRT/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
State of Minnesota, Benton County, Jef-
frey R. Raupp, Kathleen Reuter, Dan Mil-
ler, Sam Dougless, Hanna M. Efferfield,
Alexandra Kosiba, and Jaqueline Cross,
Defendants.
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s (1) opening
pleading [ECF No. 1 (“Complaint”)], (2) Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 3 (“IFP Application”)], and (3) Motion for Assistance of Counsel
[ECF No. 5 (“Counsel Motion”)]. For the following reasons, the Court recommends dis-
missing this action as frivolous and denying the IFP Application and Counsel Motion as
moot.
In August 2016, authorities in Minnesota’s Benton County charged Braun with
third-degree criminal sexual conduct. See Compl. 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323
(Minn. Dist. Ct. Aug. 3, 2016). A Benton County jury convicted him in July 2017. See
Verdict Form 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 31, 2017). The
trial court later sentenced Braun to 91 months imprisonment. See Order and Warrant of
Commitment 1, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 6, 2017).
Authorities apparently released Braun at some point, but the Complaint notes “[r]evocation
[p]roceedings” that occurred in August 2024. Compl. 6. Braun is currently incarcerated
at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater (“MCF-Stillwater”). See Docket.
The Court received the Complaint on September 26, 2024. See Docket. Its nine
defendants include Benton County, the State of Minnesota, the presiding criminal-trial
judge, attorneys involved in his criminal case (including county attorneys and at least one
of Braun’s own former attorneys), the victim of Braun’s misconduct, and Alexandra
Kosiba and Jaqueline Cross, who were apparently witnesses at his trial. See Compl. 1–3,
6; Register of Actions, State v. Braun, No. 05-CR-16-1323 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). The action’s
thrust is that Braun is innocent and that Defendants’ conduct unconstitutionally led to his
unjust prosecution and conviction. See Compl. 1–7. He seeks monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief. See id. at 5–7.
Rather than pay this action’s filing fee, Braun submitted the IFP Application. That
filing suggests that as a financial matter, Braun likely qualifies for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status. Furthermore, under the federal statute governing IFP proceedings, a pris-
oner-litigant must generally pay an initial partial filing fee based on financial information
concerning the prisoner’s trust-fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Braun claims that he has been unable to get the necessary information from prison authorities. See Aff. of Pl. 1 [ECF No. 4]. Given this difficulty, the Court will treat Braun as a “plaintiff [with] no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee,” thereby letting this action proceed notwithstanding Braun’s failure to submit an initial partial filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(4). Under28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2), “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss [a case proceeding IFP] at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .” A complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); see also, e.g., Jones v. Norris,310 F.3d 610
, 612 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Neitzke). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law if it relies on an “inarguable legal conclusion.” Neitzke,490 U.S. at 325
; see also, e.g., McCullough v. Horton,69 F.3d 918, 919
(8th Cir. 1995) (stating that a matter is legally frivolous if “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” (quoting Neitzke,490 U.S. at 327
)). Braun’s claims are frivolous due to the well-established “favorable termination” re- quirement of Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477
(1994). This requirement states that “to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 486–87; see also, e.g., Mitchell v. Kirchmeier,28 F.4th 888
, 895 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Heck). While Heck itself concerned damages claims, later caselaw extends its rule to claims for equitable relief as well. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Dotson,544 U.S. 74
, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalida- tion)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief) . . . —if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” (emphasis in original)); Evenstad v. Schnell, No. 20-CV-1464 (WMW/DTS),2022 WL 617598
, at *14 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2022) (quoting Wilkinson), report and recommendation adopted,2022 WL 616962
(D. Minn. Mar. 2, 2022). Nothing in the Complaint suggests a favorable termination of the charges underly- ing Braun’s confinement, so the Court cannot address his claims. The Court therefore recommends dismissing this action as frivolous (without prejudice, in case Braun can later meet the favorable-termination requirement). Given this recommendation, the Court fur- ther recommends denying the IFP Application and Counsel Motion as moot. Braun is also responsible for this action’s filing fee under28 U.S.C. § 1915
(b)(1). The Court therefore
also recommends informing authorities at MCF-Stillwater of this obligation, and authoriz-
ing them to remit monies from Braun’s trust-fund in accordance with § 1915(b)(2) to pay
this action’s filing fee.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the favorable-termination require-
ment of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2. Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s Application to Proceed in Dis-
trict Court Without Prepaying Fees [ECF No. 3] and Motion for As-
sistance of Counsel [ECF No. 5] be DENIED as moot.
3. The institution having custody of Braun (currently the Minnesota Cor-
rectional Facility–Stillwater) be DIRECTED to collect and remit
monthly payments from him for this action’s filing fee in the manner
set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Dated: October 24, 2024 s/Tony N. Leung
__________________________________
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
Braun v. State of Minnesota
Case No. 24-cv-3596 (JRT/TNL)
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objec-
tions within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2).
All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local
Rule 72.2(c). Reference
- Status
- Unknown