Braun v. Maslankowski

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota January 25, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Nathan Christopher Braun, Case No. 23-cv-1784 (JMB/DLM)

Plaintiff,

Jail Administrator–Captain Mark
Maslankowski, Lt. Kellen Boerger,
Lt. Sean Haney, Sgt. Dave Wenderski,
Sgt. Hoxter, Sgt. Polak, Sgt. Brixius, ORDER AND
Sgt. Megan Lahr, Shift Supervisor #2712, REPORT AND
Shift Supervisor #2711, Sgt. #2705, RECOMMENDATION
Unnamed and Unnumbered Shift
Supervisor, Shift Supervisor #2709,
Ofc. Knick, Ofc. Long, Ofc. Stossel,
SORT for the Date of 7/12/2023,
Ofc. Crawford, Ofc. Huisman, Ofc. Van-
ravensway, Ofc. Budgett, Ofc. Karnes,
Ofc. Watry, SORT for the Date of
5/1/2023, Ofc. Stephany, Ofc. Giese,
Ofc. Bienusa, Ofc. Kruger, Ofc.
C. Brown, Unknown Ofc. Standing
Outside of Cell at 0500 on the Date of
7/13/23, and Ofc. Hogie,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP
Application”) (Doc. 5), Motion for Protective Order and Temporary Injunction (Doc. 16),
and Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by Deposition (Doc. 8). For the following reasons,
the Court grants the IFP Application, denies the Deposition Motion without prejudice, and
recommends the denial of the Motion for Protective Order and Temporary Injunction as
moot.

BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2023, this Court ordered Mr. Braun to submit an amended
complaint. (Doc. 18 at 9.) On December 28, 2023, the Court entered an Order noting
difficulties in getting mail to Mr. Braun. (Doc. 20 at 1–2.) As a result, the Court extended
Mr. Braun’s amended-complaint deadline to January 25, 2024. (Id. at 1.) In the meantime,
however, this action’s docket features three pending motions that the Court can resolve

while awaiting Mr. Braun’s submission.
I. Mr. Braun’s IFP Application.
Mr. Braun submitted his IFP Application on July 7, 2023. (Doc. 5.) The IFP
Application asks the Court to let Mr. Braun proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this
action. Review of the IFP Application indicates that, as a financial matter, Mr. Braun

qualifies for IFP status. The Court therefore grants the IFP Application. However, the Court
will wait to enter any service-related orders until the Court receives Mr. Braun’s future
filing. Once the Court receives that filing, it will review the matter as appropriate under

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915

 and 1915A.                                                 
II.  Mr. Braun’s Motion for Injunctive Relief.                            

    The Court received Mr. Braun’s motion seeking injunctive relief on July 19, 2023. 
(Doc. 16.) Most of the document consists of Mr. Braun’s account of certain alleged events 
on July 12–13, 2023, involving him and various officers at the Stearns County Jail (“SCJ”). 
(Id. at 1–2.) Indeed, while the document is titled as a request for a protective order and a 
temporary injunction, the filing has no specific request for relief. (See id.) But the document 
contains the following statement: “[Mr. Braun] has clearly established . . . the need for 

protection from these officers from conducting illegal actions.” (Id. at 2.) The Court must 
construe filings by pro se litigants liberally. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 (2007); 
Kahsai v. Dejoy, No. 20-cv-1060 (JRT/DLM),

2024 WL 112276

, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 
2024). The Court therefore construes this motion as seeking some sort of injunctive relief 
to prevent the officers discussed from further interacting with Mr. Braun. 
    Mr. Braun is no longer at the SCJ. The Minnesota Department of Corrections’s 

online inmate locator indicates that he is presently on supervised release, and he is no 
longer  on  the  SCJ  inmate  roster.  See  Minn.  Dep’t  of  Corrs.,  Locator, 
https://perma.cc/3ZYF-F7D2 (last visited Jan. 24, 2024); Stearns Cty. Minnesota, Stearns 
County Current Inmates, https://perma.cc/R8KN-NMKW (last visited Jan. 24, 2024). This 
presumably means he is no longer interacting with the relevant SCJ personnel. The Court 

therefore recommends denying the Mr. Braun’s motion seeking injunctive relief (Doc. 16) 
as moot.1                                                                 




1 Even if the motion for injunctive relief were not moot, the Court would still recommend 
denying it. As a matter of procedure, the motion does not follow the procedural rules that 
apply when one seeks a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. See Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 65(a)–(b) (establishing relevant procedural rules). Additionally, Mr. Braun does 
not justify his injunctive-relief request under the relevant substantive guidelines established 
by cases such as Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.,

640 F.2d 109

 (8th Cir. 1981). 
III.  Mr. Braun’s Deposition Motion.                                      
    Finally, the Court turns to the Deposition Motion. The Court received this motion 

on July 26, 2023. (Doc. 8.) In it, Mr. Braun asks the Court to let him depose various 
individuals “in order to perpetuate their testimony.” (Id. at 1.) At this point in the case, it 
is neither clear what the operative complaint will be, nor which claims or individuals will 
remain after this Court’s prescreening review. As a result, the Court denies the Deposition 
Motion (Doc. 8) without prejudice. As the case proceeds, if it appears that discovery will 
be necessary, Mr. Braun will be able to engage in whatever forms of discovery the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure permit, including depositions.

ORDER

    Based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED that: 
         1.   Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s Application to Proceed in 
              District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 5) is 
              GRANTED; and                                               
         2.   Mr. Braun’s Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by Deposition 
              (Doc. 8) is DENIED without prejudice.                      
                      RECOMMENDATION                                     
    Based  on  all  the  files,  records,  and  proceedings  in  this  case,  IT  IS 
RECOMMENDED that:                                                         
         1.    Mr. Braun’s Motion for Protective Order and Temporary Injunction 
              (Doc. 16) be DENIED as moot.                               



Date: January 25, 2024              s/Douglas L. Micko                   
                                   DOUGLAS L. MICKO                      
                                   United States Magistrate Judge        
                            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 
Appeals.                                                                  
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 with a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those 
objections  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).