McGraw-Williams v. Mankey

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 0:24-cv-04176
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

ANTONIO TREVYLL MCGRAW- Case No. 24-cv-4176 (LMP/DLM) WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED MATTHEW JAMES MANKEY,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the December 2, 2024 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 4) of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko, which recommends dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff Antonio Trevyll McGraw-Williams’s action. The R&R also recommends denying McGraw-Williams’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) and directing the institution where McGraw-Williams is incarcerated to collect and remit monthly payments from him for this action’s filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). See ECF No. 4 at 4. McGraw-Williams objected to the R&R (ECF No. 5), so this Court reviews the R&R’s conclusions de novo, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). FACTUAL BACKGROUND McGraw-Williams is accused of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl in an ongoing criminal prosecution in this District. See United States v. McGraw-Williams, No. 23-cr-66 (JNE/LIB) (D. Minn.), ECF No. 1. Attorney Paul Engh was initially appointed to represent McGraw-Williams. Id. at ECF No. 15. A few months after the

appointment, McGraw-Williams sought to have new counsel appointed. Id. at ECF No. 28. Following a hearing, the Court granted McGraw-Williams’s motion for new counsel, relieved Engh of his assignment, and directed the Office of the Federal Defender to find new counsel for McGraw-Williams. Id. at ECF No. 31. Attorney Matthew James Mankey, the defendant in this civil action, was then appointed to represent McGraw-Williams. Id. at ECF No. 32.

McGraw-Williams soon grew dissatisfied with Mankey and sought to proceed pro se with standby counsel. See, e.g., id. at ECF No. 49. Following a hearing, the Court granted McGraw-Williams’s motion to proceed pro se and designated Mankey as standby counsel. Id. at ECF No. 63. That decision did not satisfy McGraw-Williams, who moved to remove Mankey as standby counsel. See id. at ECF No. 111. Mankey also moved to

withdraw as standby counsel. Id. at ECF No. 116. On September 18, 2024, the Court denied both McGraw-Williams’s and Mankey’s motions. Id. at ECF No. 119. On November 11, 2024, McGraw-Williams commenced this action against Mankey. See McGraw-Williams v. Mankey, No. 24-cv-4176 (LMP/DLM) (D. Minn.), ECF No. 1. The sole relief that McGraw-Williams seeks in this civil action is to require Mankey to

withdraw as standby counsel and to have new counsel appointed. Id. at 2. On December 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Micko issued the R&R, recommending dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. ECF No. 4 at 3. On December 5, 2024—after the R&R had been issued—the Court in McGraw- Williams’s criminal case relieved Mankey from his assignment as standby counsel and directed the Office of the Federal Defender to find new counsel for McGraw-Williams. See

McGraw-Williams, No. 23-cr-66, ECF No. 133. On December 12, 2024, attorney Eric Newmark was appointed to represent McGraw-Williams. Id. at ECF No. 134. Despite the appointment of new counsel, the next day, McGraw-Williams filed objections to the R&R, challenging the quality of Mankey’s representation. See McGraw-Williams, No. 24-cv- 4176, ECF No. 5.

ANALYSIS Article III restricts federal courts to the resolution of cases and controversies. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). “To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Id. at 732–33 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of

Article III—when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, federal courts will dismiss a case as moot when “changed circumstances already provide the requested relief and eliminate the need for court action.” McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029,

1035 (8th Cir. 2004). Here, the only relief requested in McGraw-Williams’s complaint is Mankey’s withdrawal as standby counsel and appointment of new counsel. See ECF No. 1 at 2. After the R&R in this case was issued, the Court in McGraw-Williams’s criminal case granted him exactly that relief. See United States v. McGraw-Williams, No. 23-cr-66 (JNE/LIB), ECF Nos. 133, 134. Although McGraw-Williams continues to criticize Mankey’s

representation in his objections to the R&R (ECF No. 5), there is no question that the Court in McGraw-Williams’s criminal case has provided him with the relief requested in this action, which “eliminate[s] the need for court action.” McCarthy, 359 F.3d at 1035. The Court must therefore dismiss this action as moot and hereby modifies the R&R accordingly. And because the Court dismisses McGraw-Williams’s complaint, the Court also dismisses McGraw-Williams’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2)

as moot. ORDER Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED.

2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. 3. The Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. The institution having custody of McGraw-Williams is directed to collect and remit monthly payments to the Court in the manner set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2)

until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. McGraw-Williams is obligated to pay, and the institution having custody of him is obligated to forward, 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to McGraw-Williams’s institutional account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 5. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to send notice of McGraw-Williams’s payment obligations to the institution where McGraw-Williams is incarcerated.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: January 3, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge