Braun v. MNDOC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan C. Braun,
Plaintiff,
v.
MNDOC; Commissioner of Corrections;
MCF-Rush City Warden; MCF Rush City
Grievance Coordinator; MCF-Stillwater
Warden; MCF-Stillwater Grievance
Authority; and Crystal Brakke, MNDOC
Deputy Commissioner,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-2244 (JWB/SGE)
ORDER
Plaintiff Nathan C. Braun, a Minnesota state prisoner, has filed a one-page
complaint alleging that the Minnesota Department of Corrections and its officials have
violated his constitutional rights by temporarily restricting him from filing emergency
grievances after having filed, in their view, too many frivolous or duplicative grievances.
Braun has applied for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status, and that IFP application is now
before the Court for review.
Unfortunately for Braun, he has filed too many frivolous, duplicative, and otherwise
non-meritorious lawsuits to qualify for IFP status. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
CASE 0:26-cv-02244-JWB-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 05/08/26 Page 1 of 4

2
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Braun has filed many, many lawsuits over the years. Most of those lawsuits were dismissed
for reasons other than being frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, and those dismissals therefore do not count as “strikes” for purposes
of § 1915(g). Three of the dismissals, however, do count as strikes:
(1) In Braun v. State of Minnesota, No. 24-CV-3596 (LMP/TNL) (D. Minn.), Braun
raised an array of claims attacking the validity of his sentence. That lawsuit was
dismissed—and was expressly labeled upon dismissal as being frivolous, see id., Dkt. 7
(D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted in Dkt. 10 (D. Minn Nov.
25, 2024)—under the favorable-termination rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). Any dismissal on frivolity grounds counts as a strike, and the Eighth Circuit
has previously concluded (albeit in an unpublished opinion) that dismissals pursuant to
Heck qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g). See Armentrout v. Tyra, 175 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir.
1999) (per curiam).
(2) In Braun v. Vierzba, No. 26-CV-0511 (JWB/DLM) (D. Minn.), Braun sought
relief from a prison official on various grounds. That lawsuit was entirely duplicative of
another lawsuit that Braun had recently filed against the same official—more on this
below—and was summarily dismissed on frivolity grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). See id., Dkt. 3 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2026), report and recommendation
adopted in Dkt. 4 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2026).
CASE 0:26-cv-02244-JWB-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 05/08/26 Page 2 of 4

3
(3) In Braun v. Vierzba, No. 26-CV-0401 (DWF/ECW) (D. Minn.), Braun raised a
number of claims related to the revocation of his intensive supervised release. Each of the
claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction was dismissed for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted or on frivolity grounds. See id., Dkt. 3 (D. Minn.
Feb. 9, 2026), report and recommendation adopted in Dkt. 4 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2026). That
dismissal was entered about five weeks before Braun filed this lawsuit. Although the
judgment in that matter was later amended to take account of post-dismissal arguments that
Braun had raised, the amended dismissal order confirms that the complaint had been
dismissed on grounds falling within those identified in § 1915(g) as registering a “strike.”
See id., Dkt. 7 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2026).
Each of the above-noted filings counts as a strike. At the moment that Braun filed
this lawsuit, he was a three-strikes litigant. At the moment that Braun applied for IFP status,
he was a three-strikes litigant. The complaint does not present factual allegations
establishing that Braun “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Accordingly, Braun is ineligible to proceed IFP in this action, and his pending
IFP application will be denied pursuant to § 1915(g).
Braun may proceed as a non-IFP litigant by paying the $405.00 filing fee for this
matter within 14 days of the date of this order. Should he do so, his complaint will remain
subject to substantive preservice review under § 1915A. Should he fail to do so, it will be
recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
CASE 0:26-cv-02244-JWB-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 05/08/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Nathan C. Braun
(Dkt. 5) is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. 	Braun must pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action within 14 days of the
date of this order, failing which it will be recommended that this matter be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Dated: May 8, 2026 	s/ Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02244-JWB-SGE Doc. 7 Filed 05/08/26 Page 4 of 4