Psomas v. Olmsted County

Background

Alicia Psomas filed a pro se (self-represented) Complaint for Violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights on January 14, 2026, against Olmsted County, Minnesota; Columbia County, Wisconsin; and thirteen named individual defendants. The court received the complaint and, on January 16, 2026, issued an order (the "January 2026 Order") identifying two fundamental deficiencies.

First, the complaint—173 single-spaced pages containing over 640 numbered paragraphs—did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1), which require that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement" of the claims and that each allegation be "simple, concise, and direct."

Second, the complaint appeared to violate Rule 20's joinder requirements (the rules governing which parties and claims may be combined in one lawsuit) by suing defendants in two different states for unrelated wrongs across different times, locations, and subject matters.

The January 2026 Order directed Ms. Psomas to file an amended complaint within 28 days and also denied her applications to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)—meaning to waive the filing fee due to inability to pay—without prejudice because the applications were incomplete.

Preliminary Observation: Use of Artificial Intelligence

Before addressing the motions, the court noted that several of Ms. Psomas's filings contained obvious bracketed placeholder text that was apparently never replaced before filing—for example, references to "Plaintiff, [Your Name]," "an extension of [e.g., 30] days," and "I, [Your Name], declare under penalty of perjury." The court stated that a litigant who uses AI-generated text bears full responsibility for the content of her filings, just as if she had written them herself, and strongly cautioned Ms. Psomas to carefully review any future filing before submitting it.

Dkt. No. 8 — Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction: DEFERRED

Ms. Psomas sought a TRO and preliminary injunction against defendant Abby Barone and the Rochester Police Department (which is not currently a named defendant), asking the court to prohibit pretextual or retaliatory traffic stops, law-enforcement contact without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, use of false reports against her, and retaliation for pursuing this litigation.

The court deferred consideration of this motion. The operative complaint has not yet been finalized, and the court cannot evaluate whether Ms. Psomas has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits—the primary factor under the Eighth Circuit's Dataphase standard for emergency injunctive relief—until the claims and defendants in the case are settled. The court stated it will address the TRO motion after the amended complaint is filed.

Dkt. No. 9 — Motion for Protective Order Over Financial Records: DENIED

Ms. Psomas asked the court to designate any financial information she submits as confidential, to allow it to be filed only in redacted form on the public docket, and to restrict its disclosure to the court and counsel of record. She cited her financial vulnerability, the presence of minor children, and alleged risk of retaliation.

The court denied this motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a party seeking a protective order must show "good cause" with specific evidence, not merely conclusory statements. The court also emphasized the strong presumption, recognized by the Eighth Circuit, that judicial records are public. Ms. Psomas offered only general allegations of bad faith and possible harm, without specific evidence of concrete injury from publicly filing an IFP application. The court further noted that IFP applications in this district are routinely filed publicly, and that the basic financial information they require (income, expenses, assets, liabilities) is not the type of sensitive material—such as trade secrets or national-security information—that typically justifies sealing.

Dkt. No. 10 — Motion for Pro Se Leniency, ADA Accommodations, and Procedural Relief: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ms. Psomas requested a broad omnibus order providing: liberal construction of her filings, assistance from the court's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator, permission to file electronically, permission to appear remotely at hearings, reasonable deadline extensions, permission to use a computer or assistive tools during proceedings, and any other accommodations the court deemed appropriate.

The court denied this motion without prejudice to Ms. Psomas raising specific, concrete requests as needs arise. The court noted that liberal construction of pro se pleadings is already the law and requires no separate order, but also clarified that liberal construction does not excuse non-compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders. The court found the motion too broad and premature: matters like electronic filing access, remote appearances, and assistive technology are addressed on an individualized basis as a case develops.

Dkt. No. 11 — Motion for Extension of Time to File IFP Affidavit: GRANTED IN PART, OTHERWISE DENIED

Ms. Psomas requested additional time to file a completed IFP (fee-waiver) application, stating that her bank would take several months to compile her financial records and that she was still reviewing recently received tax information.

The court granted 30 days from the date of the order to either file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee, but denied the request for more time beyond that. The court reasoned that the district's IFP template form asks for straightforward current financial information that a person should be able to provide from personal knowledge, without waiting months for bank compilations.

Dkt. No. 12 — Motion for 30-Day Extension to File Amended Complaint: GRANTED

Ms. Psomas requested a 30-day extension to file her amended complaint, stating she needed time to review the court's instructions, organize her claims, and present her case clearly. The court granted this motion. Ms. Psomas has 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint complying with the January 2026 Order. This deadline replaces the original 28-day deadline from that order.

Dkt. No. 13 — Motion for Clarification and Additional Extension: DENIED AS MOOT IN PART, OTHERWISE DENIED

Ms. Psomas asked for (1) clarification of what Rule 8 requires, including examples and guidance on level of detail and organization, and (2) an additional 30–45 days after receiving that guidance to file the amended complaint.

The time-extension portion was denied as moot because the court already granted 30 days under Dkt. No. 12. The clarification request was denied on the merits. The court stated that the January 2026 Order had already provided clear and specific guidance: the amended complaint must satisfy Rule 8 by being direct and comprehensible; must not contain lengthy narrative or legal argument; must set forth facts in numbered paragraphs in chronological and thematic order; must tie each factual allegation to specific defendants; must not exceed 20 pages single-spaced or 40 pages double-spaced; and must comply with Rule 20's joinder requirements. The court declined to provide further guidance, noting that it is not the court's role to serve as an advocate or to help draft a party's pleadings.

Dkt. No. 14 — Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ms. Psomas asked the court to appoint a free attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) or to refer her case to the court's pro bono panel.

The court denied this motion without prejudice. It explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) grants courts the power to request volunteer attorneys—not to compel representation. The relevant factors under Eighth Circuit precedent include the factual and legal complexity of the issues, the ability of the unrepresented person to investigate facts and present claims, and the existence of conflicting testimony. The court found the request premature: the operative complaint is not yet finalized, the case has not progressed to discovery or trial (stages that particularly disadvantage unrepresented litigants), and Ms. Psomas's filings to date—though in need of improvement—showed she can articulate factual allegations and legal theories. Ms. Psomas may renew the request at a later stage if circumstances change.

Dkt. No. 15 — Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Adding the Rochester Police Department: DENIED AS MOOT

Ms. Psomas asked for permission to file a First Amended Complaint adding the Rochester Police Department as a defendant and filed a proposed amended complaint as an attachment. The court denied this as moot because it had already granted Ms. Psomas 30 days to file an amended complaint in response to the January 2026 Order. That amended complaint will supersede the original complaint in its entirety, and Ms. Psomas may name the Rochester Police Department as a defendant in that filing without any separate motion. The court noted in a footnote that the proposed amended complaint attached to this motion did not appear to comply with the January 2026 Order—it remained sprawling and disorganized, listed dozens of causes of action without tying specific facts to specific claims, and included lengthy narrative and legal argument contrary to Rule 8.

Summary of Dispositions

- Dkt. No. 8 (TRO / preliminary injunction): Deferred - Dkt. No. 9 (protective order over financial records): Denied - Dkt. No. 10 (pro se leniency / ADA accommodations): Denied without prejudice - Dkt. No. 11 (IFP extension): Granted in part (30 days to file IFP or pay fee); otherwise denied - Dkt. No. 12 (extension to file amended complaint): Granted (30 days from order date) - Dkt. No. 13 (clarification / additional extension): Denied as moot on extension; otherwise denied - Dkt. No. 14 (appointment of counsel): Denied without prejudice - Dkt. No. 15 (leave to amend to add Rochester Police Department): Denied as moot