Braun v. Stearns County Jail
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Braun v. Stearns County Jail
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan Christopher Braun, No. 23-cv-1413 (KMM/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Stearns County Jail,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, dated January 24, 2024. R&R, ECF
No. 34. In the R&R, Judge Schultz recommends that this action be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), his Motion for Protective Order
and Temporary Injunction (ECF No. 24), and his Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by
Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (ECF No. 26) be denied as moot. No objections
have been filed to the R&R.1
1 By rule, Mr. Braun had until February 7, 2024 to object to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1) (providing a 14-day deadline for filing objections); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1) (same).
Mail previously sent to Mr. Braun at the Stearns County Jail was returned undelivered in October
2023 and resent to him at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud (“MCF-St. Cloud”),
where the online Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Offender Locator tool indicated
he was then detained. On February 5, 2024, the R&R was also returned because Mr. Braun was
no longer at MCF-St. Cloud. No forwarding address is on file for Mr. Braun and the DOC
website indicates he is currently “under supervision.” Mr. Braun has not informed the Court of
an address where he can receive information regarding his case, including Orders and other
notifications to which he must respond. Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922(8th Cir. 2005) (“[A] litigant who invokes the processes of the federal courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit.”). When a plaintiff objects to an R&R, the Court reviews the portions objected to de novo and “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). In the absence of specific objections, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review, and instead reviews the R&R for clear error. Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC,98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017
(D. Minn. 2015); accord Grinder v. Gammon,73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court finds none. The Court agrees with Judge Schultz’s conclusion that jurisdiction is lacking over this matter because there is no live case or controversy. Mr. Braun’s pleadings seek only injunctive relief concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Stearns County Jail. He is no longer at Stearns County Jail, and his injunctive-relief claims concerning conduct at a facility where he is no longer confined are, therefore, moot. His other pending motions are also properly denied as a result.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. The R&R, ECF No. 34, is ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2; Motion for Protective
Order and Temporary Injunction, ECF No. 24; and Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by
Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, ECF No. 26, are DENIED as moot.
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
jurisdiction.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
Date: February 27, 2024 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan Christopher Braun, No. 23-cv-1413 (KMM/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Stearns County Jail,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz, dated January 24, 2024. R&R, ECF
No. 34. In the R&R, Judge Schultz recommends that this action be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), his Motion for Protective Order
and Temporary Injunction (ECF No. 24), and his Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by
Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (ECF No. 26) be denied as moot. No objections
have been filed to the R&R.1
1 By rule, Mr. Braun had until February 7, 2024 to object to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1) (providing a 14-day deadline for filing objections); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1) (same).
Mail previously sent to Mr. Braun at the Stearns County Jail was returned undelivered in October
2023 and resent to him at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in St. Cloud (“MCF-St. Cloud”),
where the online Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Offender Locator tool indicated
he was then detained. On February 5, 2024, the R&R was also returned because Mr. Braun was
no longer at MCF-St. Cloud. No forwarding address is on file for Mr. Braun and the DOC
website indicates he is currently “under supervision.” Mr. Braun has not informed the Court of
an address where he can receive information regarding his case, including Orders and other
notifications to which he must respond. Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 922(8th Cir. 2005) (“[A] litigant who invokes the processes of the federal courts is responsible for maintaining communication with the court during the pendency of his lawsuit.”). When a plaintiff objects to an R&R, the Court reviews the portions objected to de novo and “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). In the absence of specific objections, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review, and instead reviews the R&R for clear error. Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC,98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017
(D. Minn. 2015); accord Grinder v. Gammon,73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court finds none. The Court agrees with Judge Schultz’s conclusion that jurisdiction is lacking over this matter because there is no live case or controversy. Mr. Braun’s pleadings seek only injunctive relief concerning the conditions of his confinement at the Stearns County Jail. He is no longer at Stearns County Jail, and his injunctive-relief claims concerning conduct at a facility where he is no longer confined are, therefore, moot. His other pending motions are also properly denied as a result.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. The R&R, ECF No. 34, is ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2; Motion for Protective
Order and Temporary Injunction, ECF No. 24; and Petition to Perpetuate Testimony by
Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, ECF No. 26, are DENIED as moot.
3. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
jurisdiction.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
Date: February 27, 2024 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown