Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall
Aaron Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall; Minnesota Health; Hospitality Solution Staffing; Guarda Security; Ramsey County Correctional Facility; Hennepin County Department of Human Resources; Pursuit Hometal; Clear Lake Dental, W. St. Paul MN; Minnesota Programming Volunteers, Department of Human Resources; Sgt. Petrode; Morad; Montean; Sarsfield; and Laura Tiffany
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-04041
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Aaron Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall et al., Judge Blackwell dismissed Aaron Cherry's lawsuit without prejudice — meaning Cherry may refile — because the complaint listed too many unrelated defendants in violation of court rules and contained allegations too unclear to state any recognizable legal claim, and warned Cherry that continued similar filings could result in restrictions on his ability to file future lawsuits.
Aaron Cherry, a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without a lawyer) who has repeatedly filed lawsuits in the District of Minnesota and whose cases have consistently been dismissed before reaching defendants. This opinion also serves as a general caution to other self-represented litigants that complaints must be clear, legally developed, and properly structured under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
What happened
In Aaron Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall et al. (Case No. 25-4041), Aaron Cherry filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota naming roughly a dozen defendants, including county jails, staffing agencies, a security company, a dental office, and several individual employees. This is at least Cherry's seventh lawsuit in this district since 2019, and the complaint named nearly the same defendants as his immediately prior lawsuit, which had already been dismissed just four months earlier by another judge.
The court was required to screen Cherry's complaint before it could be served on any defendant because Cherry asked to proceed without paying filing fees — a process available to people who cannot afford court costs. Under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)), courts must dismiss such cases that are frivolous or fail to state a valid legal claim. The court found two major problems: first, Cherry improperly lumped together unrelated defendants and claims in a single lawsuit, which violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's joinder rules (the rules about which parties and claims can be combined in one case); second, Cherry's factual allegations were too unclear and disorganized to state any understandable or plausible legal claim, repeating a problem identified repeatedly in his prior cases.
Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), meaning Cherry is not permanently barred from bringing these claims but would need to refile with a proper, clear complaint. Cherry's request to proceed without paying filing fees was denied as moot — meaning it no longer needed to be decided because the case was dismissed. Judge Blackwell also issued Cherry a renewed warning that if he continues to file vague or duplicative lawsuits, the court may impose filing restrictions that would limit his ability to bring future cases in this district.
The detailed version
Case: Aaron Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall et al., Civ. No. 25-4041 (JWB/EMB), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Decided November 26, 2025, by United States District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell.
Background
Plaintiff Aaron Cherry has filed at least six prior lawsuits in the District of Minnesota between July 2019 and July 2025. According to the opinion, courts dismissed most of those cases before service — meaning before defendants were formally notified — for reasons including failure to prosecute (Cherry's failure to take required steps to advance the case) and, most frequently, because Cherry's allegations were described by multiple judges as 'difficult or impossible to understand' or 'indecipherable.' The court catalogues these prior cases in a footnote.
Most recently, U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank dismissed Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC, No. 25-CV-2633, on June 30, 2025, finding that Cherry had improperly combined claims against many different defendants in a single action (violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, governing joinder of parties) and that the claims were 'mostly indecipherable.' Judge Frank warned Cherry at that time that continued failures could result in filing restrictions. A separate court order from June 2025 had already issued at least one prior warning about possible filing restrictions.
This Lawsuit
Cherry filed the present action (No. 25-4041) less than four months after Judge Frank's June 30, 2025 order. The complaint names nearly the same defendants as the dismissed No. 25-CV-2633 case, with the addition of a dental office (Clear Lake Dental, W. St. Paul MN).
Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Because Cherry sought to proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying filing fees, available to those who cannot afford them), the court was required by statute to screen the complaint before ordering service on any defendant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), courts must dismiss such complaints that are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Court's Analysis
Judge Blackwell identified two independent grounds for dismissal: 1. Joinder defect: The complaint suffers from the same misjoinder problem Judge Frank identified in No. 25-CV-2633 — it improperly combines claims against many unrelated defendants in a single action — and the problem is compounded by the addition of the dental office. 2. Rule 8 violation: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' The court found Cherry's factual allegations 'hard to follow,' failing to state any plausible claim, and not 'plain and clear.' This mirrors deficiencies identified in multiple prior cases.
Rulings
1. The action is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 'Without prejudice' means Cherry is not permanently barred from reasserting these claims, but he would need to file a new, compliant complaint. 2. Cherry's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot — because the case is dismissed, the fee-waiver question no longer needs to be resolved.
Warning
Judge Blackwell again warned Cherry that continued filing of claims that are not reasonably developed in fact and law, or that are duplicative of prior filings, will likely result in the court imposing filing restrictions — formal limitations on Cherry's ability to initiate new lawsuits in this district without prior court approval.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.