McCall v. Mathisen
Benesha McCall, on behalf of J.W., a minor v. Jonathan Mathisen, acting in his individual capacity as an Anoka County Sheriff’s Deputy
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:25-cv-00419
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In McCall v. Mathisen, Judge Blackwell dismissed the case without prejudice — meaning it can be refiled — because Benesha McCall, a non-lawyer, cannot represent her minor child J.W. in federal court without an attorney.
Non-attorney parents who wish to file or continue federal lawsuits on behalf of their minor children, and specifically Benesha McCall and her minor child J.W., whose claims were dismissed without prejudice pending retention of a licensed attorney.
What happened
In McCall v. Mathisen (Case No. 25-419), Benesha McCall filed a lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, J.W., against Anoka County Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Mathisen. The problem is that federal law does not allow a non-attorney parent to represent a child in court — a child must have a licensed lawyer speaking for them. McCall's own volunteer attorneys had withdrawn from the case in September 2025, and despite being given time to find new counsel, she had not done so.
McCall filed three motions in late November 2025: one asking for more time to object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss, one to reopen the case, and one to prevent any order adopting that recommendation. She argued that she should at least be allowed to object in order to protect her own rights as a plaintiff. However, the court found that McCall had never asserted any claims of her own — every claim in the lawsuit was filed on behalf of her child — so this argument did not save the case.
Judge Blackwell accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied all three of McCall's motions, as well as several other previously pending motions. The case was dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which governs the rights of parties like minors who need representation. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, J.W.'s claims may be brought again in a new lawsuit if McCall obtains a licensed attorney. The defendant's own motion to dismiss was denied as moot, meaning it no longer needed to be decided because the case was already being dismissed on other grounds.
The detailed version
Case: Benesha McCall, on behalf of J.W., a minor v. Jonathan Mathisen, acting in his individual capacity as an Anoka County Sheriff's Deputy, Civ. No. 25-419 (JWB/DLM), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Decided December 15, 2025 by U.S. District Judge Jerry W. Blackwell, adopting a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued November 4, 2025 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko.
Background
Plaintiff Benesha McCall brought this lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, J.W., against Anoka County Sheriff's Deputy Jonathan Mathisen in his individual capacity. The nature of the underlying claims against Mathisen is not described in detail in this particular order. McCall had been represented by volunteer attorneys, who withdrew on September 17, 2025. After the withdrawal, McCall continued to litigate the case herself (pro se — meaning without a lawyer).
The Magistrate Judge's R&R
On November 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Micko issued an R&R recommending dismissal of the case and denial of McCall's then-pending motions. The core legal basis was the well-established rule that a non-attorney parent may not represent a minor child pro se in federal litigation. The child must be represented by a licensed attorney.
McCall's Response Motions
At the end of November 2025, McCall filed three motions: (1) a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 97); (2) a motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 98); and (3) a motion to vacate any order adopting the R&R (Doc. No. 99). McCall stated she received the R&R about one week after it was issued. She correctly identified that the 14-day objection period runs from the date of service under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), but incorrectly believed the case had already been closed and the R&R already accepted. She requested 21 days from any extension order to file objections.
McCall also argued she should be permitted to object in order to preserve her own rights as a plaintiff, attempting to distinguish between the merits of her child's claims and her own standing. The court rejected this distinction, noting that McCall had never asserted any independent claims of her own — all claims, including those in the original complaint, were brought solely on behalf of J.W.
Standard of Review
An R&R without timely objections is reviewed for clear error; with objections, it is reviewed de novo (fresh, independent review). Judge Blackwell stated that under either standard, the R&R was accepted.
Rulings:
- McCall's motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 97) — DENIED.
- McCall's motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 98) — DENIED.
- McCall's motion to vacate any order adopting the R&R (Doc. No. 99) — DENIED.
- The November 4, 2025 R&R (Doc. No. 96) — ACCEPTED.
- McCall's Request for Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (Doc. No. 88) — DENIED.
- McCall's Motion to Strike Amended Pleading (Doc. No. 85) — DENIED.
- McCall's Motion to Strike and Rebut Defendant's 'Amended Complaint'; Alternatively Motion to Dismiss Improper Counterclaims; Request for Protective Relief (Doc. No. 86) — DENIED.
- The case — DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which addresses the capacity of parties such as minors to sue and requires that they be properly represented.
- Defendant Jonathan Mathisen's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 61) — DENIED AS MOOT (no longer necessary to decide given the dismissal on other grounds).
Effect of Dismissal Without Prejudice
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, J.W.'s claims may be refiled in a new lawsuit if McCall retains a licensed attorney to represent the child. Additionally, if McCall wishes to assert any claims of her own, she may attempt to do so by filing a new complaint in a new action.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.