UPDATE: Motion for Clarification Returned Without Docketing
Date: November 17, 2025
Event: On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification asking the district court to reconcile conflicting dates, missing rulings, and unresolved motions in the HRO case-exactly as authorized by the Minnesota Court of Appeals' November 12 directive. Instead of docketing the motion, court administration mailed it back on November 17 with a "deficiency" notice and no entry on the Register of Actions.
Filed on November 14, Returned on November 17
The original motion was a straightforward, rule-based filing: it asked the court to clarify the status of the May 23, 2025 appeal, identify which versions of certain orders are actually operative, and explain what happened to a series of July 2025 motions that appear to have vanished from the record.
Rather than addressing any of that, court administration:
- did not docket the motion,
- did not issue a written order,
- and instead mailed the entire filing back to Plaintiff on November 17 with a "deficiency" slip attached.
On paper, it looks like the motion never existed. In reality, it was physically intercepted and bounced.
The Deficiency Notice That Broke Causality
The deficiency notice attached to the returned motion managed to get almost everything wrong in one page. It:
- listed Plaintiff's address as an old Concord, NH address that has not been part of the record since February 4, 2025;
- claimed the filing was defective because Plaintiff had not signed up for e-service, despite the fact that self-represented litigants are not required to use e-service under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 14.05;
- framed the return as a matter of "judge's discretion" instead of identifying any actual rule or statute that the motion violated.
In other words, the court invoked a non-existent requirement, used an obsolete address, and treated a Court-of-Appeals, invited motion as optional junk mail.
What the Motion Was Trying to Clarify
The returned motion sought clarity on three core problems:
- May 23, 2025 Appeal: Whether the post-hearing appeal Plaintiff filed on May 23 was ever received, reviewed, or transmitted-and if not, whether it is still pending or deemed denied.
- Conflicting Orders: Which versions of the December 12, 2024 and May 23, 2025 orders are actually operative, given that unsigned originals and later-signed "fixed" copies both appear in circulation.
- July 2025 Motions: The status of multiple July filings (including Recusal and Rule 107 Referee Objection) that show no rulings on the Register of Actions and no clear disposition.
None of these are optional questions if the Court of Appeals is expected to make sense of the record. They’re basic prerequisites for appellate review.
Why Returning It Matters
By returning the motion instead of docketing it, the court effectively:
- blocked the creation of a reviewable order on those issues,
- kept the conflicting timelines and orders in a state of permanent ambiguity,
- and ensured the record would remain unstable just as the appellate briefing window opened.
The Court of Appeals told Plaintiff to raise unresolved procedural issues in the district court. The district court's response was to refuse to let the motion land.
Refiling and Repair
After receiving the returned motion and defective deficiency notice, Plaintiff:
- documented the improper return and the incorrect address used;
- corrected minor formatting issues in the motion;
- and refiled the Motion for Clarification on November 23, 2025, expressly noting that the earlier filing had been blocked from the docket.
The November 23 version now lives in the record where it always should have been. This page exists so that the first attempt-and the choice to bounce it-does not quietly disappear.