Braun v. Vierzba

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Nathan C. Braun,
Plaintiff,
v.
Christopher Vierzba,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-0511 (JWB/DLM)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Nathan C. Braun is completing a sentence for a state criminal sexual
conduct conviction. See State v. Braun, Case No. A17-1889, 2018 WL 4201208 (Minn. Ct.
App. Sept. 4, 2018), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2018). He sues Christopher Vierzba,
his conditional release officer, in federal court. (Doc. 1.) In essence, Mr. Braun claims that
he and Officer Vierzba cut a deal (which Mr. Braun refers to as a “legally binding
contract”): If Mr. Braun passed a polygraph test, Officer Vierzba would allow Mr. Braun
to have contact with his minor daughter and help to overturn Mr. Braun’s criminal
conviction. (Doc. 1.) Mr. Braun claims that he satisfied his part of this agreement by
passing the polygraph test, but Officer Vierzba failed to follow through with his end of the
bargain; instead, Officer Vierzba issued a warrant alleging that he violated his conditional
release. (Doc. 1.)
This is the second time in less than a week that Mr. Braun has filed a complaint
against Officer Vierzba asserting substantially the same allegations and requests for relief.
See Braun v. Vierzba, Case No. 26-CR-0401 (DWF/ECW) (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026)
CASE 0:26-cv-00511-JWB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(“Braun I”). Mr. Braun did not pay the filing fee associated with this action, which was
initiated second-in-time. Instead, he requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc.
2.) This matter is therefore before the Court for preservice review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Upon that review, this Court recommends that Mr. Braun’s complaint
be dismissed as duplicative and thus frivolous and that his IFP application therefore be
denied as moot.
Because Mr. Braun is a prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), his IFP application is
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), which requires that prisoners seeking IFP status pay an
initial partial filing fee upon initiating a civil action, see Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715,
716 (8th Cir. 1998). The initial partial filing fee owed by the prisoner-litigant is
twenty percent of the greater of the average monthly deposits to the plaintiff’s facility trust
account or the average balance in the plaintiff’s account for the six-month period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Mr. Braun did not submit a complete IFP application. (Doc. 2.) Instead, he
submitted a statement sworn under penalty of perjury saying that he does not have the funds
to pay an initial partial filing fee. Id. He also included his trust account statement for
December 2025, which is blank. (Doc. 2-1.) Mr. Braun’s IFP application is therefore
deficient. However, upon consideration of Braun’s sworn statement, the Court concludes
that Braun may proceed with this action without first submitting an initial partial filing fee.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (“In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a
civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no
assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.”).
CASE 0:26-cv-00511-JWB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Mr. Braun is cautioned that the entire remaining balance of the $350.00 statutory
filing fee will have to be paid in installments. Officials at the facility where Mr. Braun is
confined will be notified of this requirement and will be authorized to withdraw funds from
his facility trust account and remit those funds to the Court, consistent with § 1915(b),
regardless of the outcome of this action.
While Braun may pursue this action without paying an initial partial filing fee, his
complaint is nevertheless subject to preservice review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which provides that the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains
claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may also dismiss repetitive lawsuits as
frivolous. Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 1158-89 (8th Cir. 1992). “Duplicative litigation
may occur when ‘the parties, issues, and available relief do not significantly differ between
the two actions.’” Metzler v. Dep’t of Agric., Case No. 22-CV-735 (NEB/DTS), 2022 WL
3227358, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 21, 2022) (quoting Olson v. Counts, Case No. 12-CV-0218,
2012 WL 1394270, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2012), R&R adopted by 2022 WL 3227568
(D. Minn. May 26, 2022).
Upon close review, the Court concludes that this matter is duplicative of Braun I.
The allegations and claims for relief in this action and in Braun I are substantially the same.
Indeed, the two complaints contain similar language describing Mr. Braun’s alleged
CASE 0:26-cv-00511-JWB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 5

4
agreement with his conditional release officer, his conditional release officer’s purported
failure to comply with the terms of that agreement, and the injuries he suffered as a result
of the breach in agreement. See Braun I (Doc. 1). In all practical respects, Mr. Braun has
filed the same civil complaint twice, just a few days apart. If Mr. Braun is entitled to relief
from his claims, then Braun I is a sufficient vehicle through which to obtain that relief.
The Court, therefore, finds no good reason for both complaints to proceed.
Because Braun I was filed first, this proceeding will be dismissed without prejudice
as duplicative of Braun I and thus frivolous. See Aziz, 976 F.2d at 1158-59. The dismissal
of this action does not in any way affect the disposition of Braun I.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT
1. Plaintiff Nathan Christopher Braun’s complaint, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
2. Plaintiff’s IFP application, (Doc. 2), is DENIED as MOOT; and
3. Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance $350.00 of the statutory filing fee for
this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Clerk
of Court shall provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the
institution where he is confined.
CASE 0:26-cv-00511-JWB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Date: January 28, 2026 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule
72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-00511-JWB-DLM Doc. 3 Filed 01/28/26 Page 5 of 5