Jackson v. Schnell
Tony Dejuan Jackson v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Tim Walz, Governor for the State of Minnesota; Sofia Khan, Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Connie Jones, Deputy Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Paul Graff, Assistant Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Kelly Mitchell, Assistant Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Jolene Robertus, Assistant Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Tracy Betz, Warden MCF-Faribault; William Bolin, Warden MCF-Stillwater; Dan Moe, Associate Warden Operations, MCF-Stillwater; and Ajibola Olarinde, Associate Warden Administration MCFStillwater, Individual and Official Capacities
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-02917
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Jackson v. Schnell, Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan dismissed Tony Dejuan Jackson's amended complaint without prejudice, denied his request for a temporary restraining order, and denied his application to proceed without paying court fees, because his complaint contained unrelated claims against different defendants and failed to meet basic federal pleading rules.
Tony Dejuan Jackson, a Minnesota state prisoner who filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit alleging unlawful conditions of detention. Also potentially relevant to other prisoners with filing restrictions who bring complex or multi-defendant complaints in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Jackson v. Schnell, prisoner Tony Dejuan Jackson filed a lawsuit alleging he was subjected to unlawful conditions of detention in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments against the Minnesota Governor, state corrections officials, and several prison wardens. The case was originally filed in Iowa but transferred to the District of Minnesota because the defendants and events were based there. Jackson had previously been restricted by court order from filing new lawsuits in that district without first meeting certain conditions, due to his history of filing many cases.
A magistrate judge (a lower-level federal judicial officer who assists district judges) reviewed Jackson's amended complaint and recommended dismissing it, denying his motion for a temporary restraining order — an emergency court order to stop certain actions immediately — and denying his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The magistrate judge found that the amended complaint was not concise, contained no clear statement of specific claims, and lumped together a wide variety of unrelated allegations against different defendants covering many different dates and incidents. Jackson objected, arguing his amended complaint did satisfy the rules, and also alleged that judges in the district had retaliated against him for filing the fee waiver application.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Jackson's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations in full. The court found that, just as in a prior lawsuit Jackson filed, the amended complaint simply collected wide-ranging grievances and stitched them together into one filing without the required connection between claims and defendants. As a result, Judge Bryan dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice (meaning Jackson could potentially refile a properly structured complaint), denied the temporary restraining order and the fee waiver application, and ordered Jackson to pay the remaining $350 filing fee.
The detailed version
- Tony Dejuan Jackson v. Paul Schnell et al., File No. 25-CV-02917 (JMB/ECW), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Jeffrey M. Bryan, United States District Judge
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
Background
Petitioner Tony Dejuan Jackson, a prisoner confined at a Minnesota correctional facility, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP — a request to waive court filing fees based on inability to pay) along with a complaint alleging unlawful conditions of detention in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The respondents include the Governor of Minnesota, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and various assistant commissioners, wardens, and associate wardens at MCF-Faribault and MCF-Stillwater.
The case was initially filed in Iowa but was transferred to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because the defendants and the alleged events were Minnesota-based. Notably, Jackson is subject to an existing court order — entered in Jackson v. Schnell, No. 23-CV-0366 — restricting him from initiating new litigation in this district without first satisfying certain conditions, due to his history of prolific filing.
After preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which governs IFP proceedings, Magistrate Judge Wright allowed Jackson to file an amended complaint. She then reviewed the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) and issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending: (1) dismissal of the Amended Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 20(a)(2); (2) denial of the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); (3) denial of the IFP Application; and (4) imposition of the mandatory $350 filing fee.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' Rule 20(a)(2) requires that all defendants joined in a single action be connected by common questions of law and fact arising from the same transactions or occurrences.
Jackson's Objections
Jackson objected to the R&R, arguing that the Amended Complaint did satisfy the Federal Rules. He also alleged that judges within the District of Minnesota had retaliated against him for filing the IFP Application. No respondents entered appearances or filed responses.
Court's Analysis
Judge Bryan conducted a de novo review (an independent, fresh review from the beginning) of the portions of the R&R to which Jackson objected, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Local Rule 72.2(b). The court applied liberal construction to Jackson's filings, as required for self-represented (pro se) litigants under Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004).
The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the Amended Complaint was not concise and contained no clear statement of specific claims. Instead, it included a wide variety of unrelated allegations against distinct defendants spanning many different dates. The court cited its prior dismissal of another of Jackson's lawsuits — Jackson v. Schnell, 2023 WL 3630889 (D. Minn. Apr. 20, 2023) — for the same deficiency under Rule 20(a)(2), where the complaint had 'simply collected a wide-ranging set of complaints against MCF-Stillwater and stitched them together into one pleading.' That prior dismissal was affirmed by adoption and the appeal was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit.
Disposition:
- Jackson's objections to the R&R are OVERRULED.
- The R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety.
- The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE — Jackson is not barred from refiling, but any new complaint must comply with applicable rules.
- The motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
- The IFP Application is DENIED.
- Jackson is ordered to pay the unpaid balance of $350 in statutory filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), and the Clerk of Court is directed to notify the authorities at Jackson's place of confinement of this requirement.
Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.