McHorse v. The State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-02053
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In McHorse v. State of Minnesota, Judge Menendez dismissed Bradley Allen McHorse's complaint without prejudice after adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation finding lack of jurisdiction and frivolousness.
People who file federal lawsuits against a state government or state officials, or who seek to bring claims on behalf of others, may find this case relevant — it illustrates that such suits can be dismissed at the outset for lack of jurisdiction and that failing to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation within 14 days limits the reviewing court to a more forgiving standard of review.
What happened
In McHorse v. State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison (No. 26-cv-2053), Bradley Allen McHorse filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison. A magistrate judge reviewed the case and recommended dismissing it and denying McHorse's request to proceed without paying court fees. McHorse did not file any objections to that recommendation within the required 14-day window.
The magistrate judge found two main problems with the lawsuit. First, the court lacked the legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear claims against the State of Minnesota or against Keith Ellison in his official government capacity, and also lacked jurisdiction over any relief McHorse sought on behalf of other people. Second, any claims McHorse brought against Ellison as an individual were found to be frivolous — meaning legally groundless on their face.
Judge Katherine Menendez reviewed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and found no error in it. She adopted the recommendation in full. The entire complaint was dismissed without prejudice — meaning McHorse is not permanently barred from filing again — and his request to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot (no longer relevant given the dismissal).
The detailed version
- McHorse v. The State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison · No. 0:26-cv-02053
- Katherine Menendez
- June 1, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Bradley Allen McHorse filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota against the State of Minnesota and Keith Ellison. He also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis — a request to litigate without prepaying court filing fees, available to those who demonstrate financial hardship.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On April 27, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that: (1) the action be dismissed without prejudice, and (2) McHorse's fee-waiver application be denied. The R&R identified the following grounds:
- Lack of jurisdiction over claims brought against the State of Minnesota, claims brought against Keith Ellison in his official capacity, and any relief McHorse sought on behalf of other parties. - Frivolousness as to any individual-capacity claims brought against Ellison.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a party has 14 days to file objections to a magistrate judge's R&R. The deadline for McHorse to object was May 11, 2026. He filed no objections.
Standard of Review
Because no objections were filed, Judge Menendez reviewed the R&R only for clear error, citing Nur v. Olmsted Cnty., 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021). This is a more deferential standard than the de novo (fresh, independent) review that applies when objections are timely filed.
Rulings
Judge Menendez found no clear error and adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court's specific dispositions were:
- The R&R (Dkt. 3) is accepted.
- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it (a) brings claims against the State of Minnesota or against Ellison in his official capacity, or (b) seeks relief on behalf of other persons.
- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice as frivolous to the extent it brings individual-capacity claims against Ellison.
- McHorse's application to proceed without paying fees is denied as moot — meaning the request is no longer relevant given the dismissal of the case.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. All dismissals are without prejudice, meaning McHorse is not barred by this order itself from refiling.
Notes on Scope
The opinion does not describe the substance of McHorse's underlying claims, the nature of the alleged frivolousness beyond the label, or the factual basis for the jurisdictional defects beyond identifying them as sovereign immunity/official-capacity and third-party standing issues. The R&R (Dkt. 3) would contain the full analysis, but it is not reproduced in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.