Munt v. Schnell
| Decision Date | 31 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-3390 (DWF/ECW) |
| Parties | Joel Marvin Munt, Plaintiff, v. Paul Schnell, Michelle Smith, Tammy Wherley, Michael Costello, David Reishus, Jeanne Michels, Sadie Snyder, Eddie Miles, Victor Wanchena, Mike Warner, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 29), Plaintiff Joel Marvin Munt's1 ("Munt" or "Plaintiff") Request for a Stay and Sanctions (Dkt. 36), Plaintiff's Request for a Gag Order (Dkt. 38), Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 61), Plaintiff's Request for Sanctions (Dkt. 67), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike(Dkt. 86), and Plaintiff's Request for Court Actions (Dkt. 87). The case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Stay and Sanctions, denying Plaintiff's Request for a Gag Order, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, and denying Plaintiff's Request for Court Actions.
On December 13, 2018, Munt, then a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights ("MCF-OPH")2, filed a "Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, 1985, 1st Amd Right to Petition." (Dkt. 1 ("Complaint").) The Complaint named the following Defendants: Tom Roy3, Michelle Smith, TammyWherley, Michael Costello, David Reishus, Jeanne Michels, Sadie Jensen4, Eddie Miles, Victor Wanchena, and Mike Warner, in their official and individual capacities, as well as the United States Courts and MN Courts ("the Minnesota courts"). (Dkt. 1.)
Initially, Munt did not pay the filing fee for this matter but instead applied for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. (Dkt. 2.) On January 31, 2019, the Court ordered Munt to pay an initial partial filing fee of at least $15.09. (Dkt. 3 at 4.) Munt paid the initial partial filing fee (Dkt. 4) and the matter went before the Court on Munt's IFP application. On April 1, 2019, the Court granted Munt's application for IFP status (Dkt. 7 at 1) and also recommended that Defendants "MN Courts" and "U.S. Courts" be dismissed from this action (Dkt. 6 at 6). On June 3, 2019, the Court granted the remaining Defendants' motion for an extension of the deadline to file a responsive pleading (Dkt. 18), which gave them until June 28, 2019 to file an initial responsive pleading (Dkt. 24). On June 20, 2019, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank adopted the April 1, 2019 Report and Recommendation over Munt's objections and dismissed Munt's claims against the Minnesota Courts and U.S. Courts without prejudice. (Dkt. 26 at 4.)
On June 21, 2019, the Court denied Munt's initial request to stay the proceedings (Dkt. 8) filed on April 5, 2019. (Dkt. 27.)
On June 28, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 29.) Munt filed a Request for an Extension, seeking an additional sixty days from July 3, 2019, which hestated was the date he received Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 34 at 1.)5 In addition, Munt filed a Motion to Exceed Word Count Limit. (Dkt. 35.) On July 15, 2019, the Court granted in part Munt's Request for an Extension insofar as the Court extended his deadline to August 2, 2019 and granted in part Munt's Motion to Exceed Word Count Limit insofar as Munt was permitted 18,000 words (rather than the default 12,000 words) for his response. (Dkt. 43.)
On July 10, 2019, Munt filed a Request for a Stay and Sanctions (Dkt. 36) and a Request for a Gag Order (Dkt. 38).
On July 18, 2019, the Defendants and Munt filed a stipulation agreeing to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 45.) The Court approved the parties' stipulation. (Dkt. 49.)
On July 22, 2019, Munt filed objections (Dkt. 50) to the Court's July 15, 2019 Order (Dkt. 43) insofar as it denied in part his requests for a sixty-day extension and to exceed the word count limit in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 42). On August 19, 2019, Munt filed a brief that exceeded 18,000 words (Dkt. 55), along with a result that the Court accept his "late and oversized" brief. (Dkts. 53, 55.) On September 16, 2019, Munt filed a Motion to Certify Class. (Dkt. 61.). On September 20, 2019, District Judge Frank overruled Munt's objections, affirmed the July 15, 2019 Order (Dkt. 43), denied Munt's request to accept late and oversized brief (Dkt. 53), ordered Munt's overlong Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 55) stricken, andallowed Munt to re-file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 42) of no more than 18,000 words within 14 days of that Order. (Dkt. 65 at 2.)
On September 27, 2019, Munt requested that sanctions be imposed against Defendants and counsel, alleging that Defendants, in bad faith, represented to the Court that Munt has a personal computer and a printer in his cell. (Dkt. 67 at 1-2.) In support of his claim, Munt filed an exhibit consisting of several Offender Kite Forms. (Dkt. 68.)
On September 30, 2019, Munt filed a Motion for Reconsideration or Extension (Dkt. 71) with respect to Judge Frank's September 20, 2019 Order (Dkt. 65) insofar as it denied in part his requests for a sixty-day extension and to exceed the word count limit in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 29). Judge Frank denied Munt's Motion for Reconsideration or Extension (Dkt. 71) finding that "Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the 'extraordinary circumstances' necessary to warrant reconsideration." (Dkt. 76 at 3.)
On October 18, 2019, Munt filed a letter requesting additional time to file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 77.) Munt was ordered to file his response no later than November 6, 2019. (Dkt. 78.)
On November 4, 2019, Munt filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 80.)
On December 16, 2019, Munt filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' reply memorandum. (Dkt. 86.) On the same date, Munt filed a document entitled "Request for Court Actions" to move the Court for a stay of the proceedings, an oversized complaint, and for sanctions. (Dkt. 87.)
Munt filed his Complaint pursuant to "42 USC § 1983, 1985, 1st Amd Right to Petition." (Dkt. 1.) Munt specifies that the Complaint is "in connection with several unconstitutional disciplinary rules as well as several incidents of prison discipline and a retaliatory transfer." (Id. at 2.)6 Munt alleges that Defendants violated his "Federal Constitutional Rights of Right to Petition, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association, Equal Protection, Substantive and Procedural Due Process, Access to the Courts, Privilege of Habeas corpus, and right to be free from retaliation." (Id. at 3.) In the Complaint, Munt recounts disciplinary incidents from 2015, 2017, and 2018 and also his transfer from MCF-OPH to the Minnesota Correction Facility in Stillwater ("MCF-STW) in July 2015.
Munt alleges that in 2015 he approached the law library technician Sadie Jensen at MCF-OPH and "asked to put [ ] in writing" matters relating to his 2015 lawsuit against the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (Dkt. 1 at 13, 17.) According to Munt, Defendant Jeanne Michels submitted an affidavit in another case stating the law library technician was able to aid inmates in searching federal district court and circuit court cases. (Id.) After he asked Jensen if that was true, she said it was not true and that she did not have access to the cases or know how to search for them. (Id.) He asked Jensen to put those statements in writing, and when she refused, he "expressed that [he] would then need to subpoena her." (Id.) Munt alleges that, as a result, he was wrongfullycharged for violating an Offender Discipline Regulation ("ODR") prohibiting disorderly conduct. (Id. at 19.) He alleges that he was put in pre-hearing detention because he was allegedly a risk to the security and orderly operation of the facility and the safety of staff and other inmates. (Id. at 18.)
Munt alleges that this ODR provides:
Munt alleges that "[t]his rule is almost never enforced for actual violations" and is "treated completely subjectively and is one of two catch all rules used by staff to arbitrarily and capriciously punish inmates when they know no actual rule violations have occurred." (Id. at 19-20.) Munt alleges that at the disciplinary hearing, Defendant Michael Costello stated that "his mind was made up," proceeded to make comments about Munt's court actions, and ridiculed Munt's constitutional rights. (Id. at 21.) Additionally, Munt alleges that Costello refused to allow Munt to present video evidence or call witnesses at the hearing, "which would have proven the Incident Report did not accurately portray the encounters." (Id.) At the conclusion of the hearing, Munt claims he was sentenced to thirty days in segregation and that his administrative appeal was denied. (Id.) Munt asserts that while in segregation, he was "denied the means to file ahabeas petition challenging the discipline" and "denied the ability to pursue other court actions." (Id. at 21-22.) According to Munt, Defendants deprived him of his property and his job at MCF-OPH and punished him for conducting discovery and for attempting to pursue legal actions. (Id. at 22.)
To continue reading
Request your trial