Raper v. MN. DOC OPH
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-02675
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Raper v. MN DOC OPH, Judge Menendez dismissed the lawsuit filed by Jeremiah Christopher Raper without prejudice — meaning he could potentially refile — because he failed to pay a required partial filing fee or contact the court after being ordered to do so.
Prisoner Jeremiah Christopher Raper, who filed this lawsuit and whose case has been dismissed. Other prisoners or pro se litigants subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act who fail to pay required partial filing fees or respond to court orders may face similar dismissals.
What happened
In Raper v. MN DOC OPH, prisoner Jeremiah Christopher Raper filed a lawsuit on June 25, 2025 against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and others, along with a request to proceed without paying upfront court fees. Because he is a prisoner, federal law (the Prison Litigation Reform Act) still required him to pay the full filing fee over time, starting with an initial partial payment of $18.60.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz ordered Mr. Raper to pay that $18.60 partial fee within 21 days — by July 18, 2025 — and warned him that failing to do so would lead the court to treat the case as abandoned and recommend dismissal. As of July 28, 2025, when Judge Schultz issued his Report and Recommendation, Mr. Raper had neither paid the fee nor contacted the court in any way. That remained true at the time of the final order.
Judge Menendez adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to follow court orders or move the case forward. A dismissal without prejudice means Mr. Raper is not permanently barred from refiling, though the court did not address whether or how he could do so.
The detailed version
Case: Raper v. MN DOC OPH, No. 25-cv-2675 (KMM/DTS), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Presiding Judge: District Judge Katherine Menendez. Magistrate Judge: David T. Schultz.
Background
On June 25, 2025, plaintiff Jeremiah Christopher Raper, a prisoner, filed a complaint against MN DOC OPH (Minnesota Department of Corrections) and others, along with an Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs (commonly called an in forma pauperis application — a request to file without paying upfront fees). Because Mr. Raper is a prisoner, his case is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), which requires that even prisoners granted fee-waiver status must ultimately pay the full filing fee, beginning with an initial partial filing fee calculated from their prison trust account.
Magistrate Judge's Order and R&R
Magistrate Judge Schultz reviewed the application and ordered Mr. Raper to pay an initial partial filing fee of $18.60 within 21 days of the order, setting a deadline of approximately July 18, 2025. The order explicitly warned that failure to pay on time would result in the court considering the action abandoned and recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As of July 28, 2025, when Judge Schultz issued his Report and Recommendation (R&R), Mr. Raper had neither paid the fee nor contacted the court. The R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice.
District Court Ruling
Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R and found that the same conditions persisted — Mr. Raper had still not paid or contacted the court. She adopted the R&R in full and dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), which permits dismissal of an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. The court cited Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 F. App'x 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) for the proposition that a district court has discretion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with rules or court orders.
Effect of Dismissal
The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning it does not permanently bar Mr. Raper from refiling. However, the opinion does not address any conditions or limitations on refiling. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.