Canada v. State of Minnesota

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota March 22, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SHAWN CANADA,
Civil No. 23-2704 (JRT/JFD)
Plaintiff,

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al., ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.

Shawn Canada, OID #233817, Minnesota Correctional Facility - Rush City,
7600 525th Street, Rush City, MN 55069, pro se Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Shawn Canada, who is incarcerated, initiated this civil rights action against
the State of Minnesota and various prison officials (“Defendants”). Canada applied to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). However, the Court denied the IFP application because
Canada has accrued “three strikes” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), making him ineligible to obtain IFP status. (Order Affirming Denial
of Appl. to Proceed IFP at 6, Oct. 26, 2023, Docket No. 8.) Magistrate Judge John F.
Docherty directed Canada to pay the full $402 filing fee no later than January 26, 2024,
otherwise the action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Order Granting Mot. for
Extension of Time at 2, Nov. 30, 2023, Docket No. 15.) Because that deadline has passed
and Canada has not paid the required filing fee, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. (R. & R. at 4, Feb. 2, 2024, Docket No. 29.) The Magistrate Judge also
recommended that all pending motions be denied as moot. (Id.) Canada filed a “Motion

for Appeal,” which requests permission to appeal the Court’s order affirming the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that Canada is ineligible for IFP status under the PLRA’s “three
strikes” rule. (Mot. for Appeal at 1, Feb. 15, 2024, Docket No. 30.) He argues that not
permitting him to proceed IFP would be a manifest injustice. (Id.)

As a threshold matter, the Court liberally construes Canada’s “Motion for Appeal”
as a timely objection to the R&R. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 (2007) (“A document 
filed pro se is to be liberally construed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).  After a 

magistrate judge files an R&R, a party may “serve and file specific written objections to 
the proposed findings and recommendations.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. 
LR 72.2(b).  “The objections should specify the portions of the magistrate judge’s report 
and  recommendation  to  which  objections  are  made  and  provide  a  basis  for  those 

objections.”  Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958,

2008 WL 4527774

, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 
28, 2008).  For dispositive motions, the Court reviews de novo a “properly objected to” 
portion of an R&R.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).  “Objections 
which are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a 

magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear 
error.”  Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC,

98 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1017

 (D. Minn. 2015). 
    Because Canada’s objections are not specific, the proper standard of review is for 
clear error.  But even under a more accommodating standard of review, the Court would 

dismiss this action.  The Court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
41(b) if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the federal rules or a court order.  
Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed. App’x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).  Here, the 
Court instructed Canada to pay the full $402 filing fee by January 26 and warned Canada 

that failure to do so would result in dismissal.  Because Canada did not pay the required 
filing fee, the Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to 
dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.  Accordingly, the Court will overrule Canada’s 

objections, adopt the R&R, dismiss this action for failure to prosecute, and deny the 
pending motions in this matter as moot.  Dismissal without prejudice means that Canada 
may refile a new complaint at a later date, though he will still need to pay the full $402 
filing fee.

ORDER

    Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                      

    1.   Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 30] 
         are OVERRULED;                                                  
    2.   The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 29] is 
         ADOPTED;                                                        
     3.     Plaintiff's  Complaint  [Docket  No.  1]  is  DISMISSED without  prejudice for 
           failure to prosecute; and 
     4.     All pending motions [Docket Nos. 4, 5,9, 11, 22, 27, 28] are DENIED as moot. 

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 

DATED:  March 22, 2024                            Otay M. (edi 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -4-