Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
MixedFiled Sept. 18, 2025

Jackson v. Sexe

Judge
Katherine Menendez
Docket
0:25-cv-02688
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to DismissCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Sexe, Judge Menendez dismissed three of the four plaintiffs — Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers — from the case without prejudice (meaning they could refile) because they failed to follow a court order requiring them to resubmit their fee-waiver applications.

Who this affects

The three dismissed plaintiffs — Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers — are directly affected, as they have been removed from this lawsuit. The remaining plaintiff, Chris Jackson, is affected in that he now proceeds alone. Anyone who files a multi-party lawsuit and fails to comply with a court order regarding fee-waiver applications may face similar dismissal.

What happened

In Jackson v. Sexe (No. 25-cv-02688), four plaintiffs — Chris Jackson, Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers — sued Michelle Sexe, Gary Tallefson, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services, filing the case in June 2025. Each plaintiff also applied to proceed without paying court filing fees (known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis'). The magistrate judge reviewed those applications, found their accuracy questionable, and ordered all four plaintiffs to refile the applications within 21 days.

Only plaintiff Chris Jackson responded to that order — but instead of refiling the fee-waiver application, he filed a motion to amend the complaint to list himself as the only plaintiff, effectively attempting to remove the other three plaintiffs from the case. The magistrate judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard, denied that motion, explaining that one plaintiff cannot unilaterally remove other plaintiffs from a lawsuit. Judge Bullard then issued a report recommending that Dorn, Mohawk, and Mayers be dismissed for failing to follow the court's order. After that recommendation was issued, Dorn, Mohawk, and Mayers still did not file updated applications, respond to the recommendation, or communicate with the court in any way.

Based on the full record, Judge Menendez accepted Magistrate Judge Bullard's recommendation and dismissed Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers from the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute their case or comply with court orders. The dismissal is 'without prejudice,' meaning these three individuals are not permanently barred from bringing claims again. The case continues with Chris Jackson as the remaining plaintiff.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jackson v. Sexe, No. 25-cv-02688 (KMM/EMB), United States District Court, District of Minnesota **Presiding Judge:** U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez (with U.S. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issuing the underlying Report and Recommendation)
Date
September 18, 2025

Background

On June 25, 2025, four plaintiffs — Chris Jackson, Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers — filed a complaint against Michelle Sexe (in her individual and official capacities), Gary Tallefson (in his individual and official capacities), and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Each plaintiff simultaneously filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP), a request to waive prepayment of court filing fees based on financial need.

Magistrate Judge's Initial Order

On July 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Bullard reviewed the IFP applications and, questioning their veracity, ordered all four plaintiffs to refile their IFP applications within 21 days.

Jackson's Motion to Amend

Twenty days after that order, plaintiff Chris Jackson alone filed a Motion to File a First Amended Complaint. His proposed amended complaint named only himself as plaintiff, which would have effectively removed Dorn, Mohawk, and Mayers from the lawsuit. Magistrate Judge Bullard denied this motion, noting that one plaintiff cannot unilaterally remove co-plaintiffs from a case.

Report and Recommendation (R&R)

In her July 29, 2025 combined Order and R&R, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended that Dorn, Mohawk, and Mayers be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), given that they had not complied with the July 1 order to refile their IFP applications. Following issuance of the R&R, Dorn, Mohawk, and Mayers filed nothing — no updated IFP applications, no objections to the R&R, and no other communications with the court.

Ruling

Judge Menendez accepted the R&R in full and dismissed Tim Dorn, Tim Mohawk, and Mathias Mayers without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar these plaintiffs from refiling claims in the future, though statute of limitations and other procedural rules may independently affect their ability to do so. The court cited Rule 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders, as well as Eighth Circuit authority recognizing a district court's discretion and inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Effect

The case continues with Chris Jackson as the sole remaining plaintiff. The claims against Michelle Sexe, Gary Tallefson, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services remain active as to Jackson only.

Reviewer note from the AI+
The opinion does not describe the substance of the underlying claims against the defendants, so the summary cannot characterize what the lawsuit is about beyond the parties named. The 'civil-rights' tag is used because the defendants are sued in individual and official capacities and the Department of Human Services is named, which is suggestive of a civil rights or section-1983 action, but this is not explicitly stated in the opinion. Consider verifying the nature of the underlying claims if the complaint is available.
The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.