Susan Beth Richard Nelson
How Judge Nelson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Nelson will not infer a private civil remedy from a criminal statute: she holds that a criminal prohibition (here Minnesota's commercial-bribery statute, Minn. Stat. 609.86) creates no civil cause of action unless the statute expressly or by clear implication so provides. A plaintiff dressing a criminal act up as a civil claim should expect 12(b)(6) dismissal.
“The law in Minnesota is clear that commercial bribery exists only as a criminal act—not a civil cause of action. ... '[A] criminal statute does not automatically give rise to a civil cause of action unless the statute expressly or by clear implication so provides.'”
Nelson enforces the specific-objection requirement for magistrate R&Rs strictly: general or conclusory objections, untimely objections, and brand-new arguments raised for the first time in objections do not trigger de novo review and will not be considered. A party who loses before the magistrate must object with particularity and on time, or the R&R stands.
“the burden is on the objecting party to note—with specificity—the basis upon which he objects to each recommendation. ... General or conclusory objections are insufficient to trigger de novo review ... 'New claims or arguments, presented for the first time in the objections to an R&R, will not be reviewed.'”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 7 |
Granted: 7 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for order to show cause N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff Brock Fredin's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 80] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff Brock Fredin's letter request for leave to file a third amended complaint [Doc. No. 89] is DENIED;”
“Defendant Referee Elizabeth Clysdale's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 38], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED, and all claims against Referee Clysdale are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Defendants Grace Elizabeth Miller, Catherine Marie Schaefer, and Lindsey Middlecamp's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 44], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED, and all claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”
“Defendant Sergeant David E. McCabe's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 49], as applied to the now operative Second Amended Complaint, is GRANTED ... Summary judgment is awarded on the search warrant-based retaliation claim in Count 1 ... and on the Franks-based Fourth Amendment claim in Count 2 ... All remaining claims against Sergeant McCabe are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant John H. Pribyl's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 283] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant John H. Pribyl are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Michael Fuhrman's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 296] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Michael Fuhrman are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Janey Nelson's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 344] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Janey Nelson are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Defendant Sonia Mosch's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 357] is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Sonia Mosch are DISMISSED with prejudice;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Motion to Defendant Mosch's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 376] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff Harley Dean Meyer's Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 367] is DENIED;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 364 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 260 days (N = 3).
Nelson-assigned dockets confirmed this session (all the same pro se filer, illustrating her serial-filer caseload not her overall mix): Fredin v. Clysdale 0:18-cv-00510 (440 civil rights; filed 2018-02-22, terminated 2019-02-21); Fredin v. Miller 0:19-cv-03051 (320 assault/libel/slander); Fredin v. Street 0:19-cv-02864 (440 civil rights); Fredin v. Miller 0:18-cv-00466 (360 PI: other); Fredin v. Kreil 0:20-cv-01929 (assault/libel/slander). Per her Wikipedia bio and practice background her broader docket includes complex product-liability and mass-tort matters. This sample is not representative; a deepening pass should enumerate her full assigned-judge docket and sample counseled, contested cases.