This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
David P. Peterson,
Filed January 30, 2007
Rice County District Court
File No. C1-05-1468
David P. Peterson, OID
Lori Swanson, Attorney General,
Richard L. Varco, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 900 Bremer Tower,
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Minge, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
At all times relevant to this appeal, appellant David P. Peterson was an inmate at MCF-FRB. He filed a summons and complaint in Rice County District Court on August 30, 2005, challenging the MCF-FRB staff’s authority to deduct $5 from his inmate account to pay for a required identification card. His previous identification card had become unusable. Appellant alleged that the staff at MCF-FRB billed appellant’s account for the new identification card without obtaining his permission to do so.
On September 16, 2005, MCF-FRB moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(f) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
On February 24, 2006, the district court issued an amended order to dismiss appellant’s claim, and judgment was entered on February 27, 2006. Appellant filed an appeal on April 19, 2006, seeking review of the February 24 order dismissing appellant’s civil action. This court filed an order on May 12, 2006, stating that “an order dismissing an action is not appealable and the proper appeal is from the resulting judgment.” This court stated that it would “construe [this] appeal to be from the February 27 judgment.”
D E C I S I O N
argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, dismissing
appellant’s claim as frivolous. This
court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there is
a disputed issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its
application of the law. Zip Sort, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 567
N.W.2d 34, 37 (
The district court shall
grant a motion for summary judgment when the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d
60, 69 (
The Minnesota Commissioner
of Corrections may make deductions not only from compensation paid to inmates
but also from “other funds in an inmate account.”
Appellant counters and argues
that Henderson v. MCF, a case in
which a default judgment for $5 was granted to an inmate for an ID-card fee, is
analogous to this case.
Appellant next argues that
the $5 deduction was prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 241.08 (2004). This statute simply governs the management of
inmate monies by commissioners and executive officers of various institutions,
including the handling of inmate bank deposits.
For the first time on appeal,
appellant asserts a due-process claim. As
a general rule, the court of appeals must consider “only those issues that the
record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the
matter before it.” Thayer v. Am. Fin. Advisors, Inc., 322 N.W.2d 599, 604 (
 The appellant is currently an inmate at the