Jackson v. Schnell
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03827
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Jackson v. Schnell, Judge Menendez dismissed Jackson’s amended complaint with prejudice and denied his related motions.
The order ended Tony Dejuan Jackson’s case against Paul Schnell, Jo Ann Erickson, and William Bolin. It also denied Jackson’s requests to amend his complaint, obtain a preliminary injunction, consolidate the case, appoint counsel, and extend the objection deadline.
What happened
Jackson v. Schnell involved Tony Dejuan Jackson’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations about his complaint and several motions against Paul Schnell, Jo Ann Erickson, and William Bolin.
The court reviewed the recommendations and Jackson’s objections, then accepted the recommendations. It also considered Jackson’s fourth request to amend his complaint, his request to combine this case with another case, and his request for a lawyer. The court found the proposed amendment futile, including because it added later events, did not adequately allege Schnell’s personal involvement, and repeated allegations already considered.
Judge Katherine Menendez overruled Jackson’s objections, denied his extension request as moot, denied his motions to amend, consolidate, and appoint counsel, and denied his request for a preliminary injunction. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Jackson’s amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Schnell · No. 0:23-cv-03827
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 24, 2025
Background and review
Tony Dejuan Jackson sued Paul Schnell, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections; Jo Ann Erickson, Education Director at Stillwater Close Custody Level Four Correctional Facility; and William Bolin, Warden at that facility. The order concerns Jackson’s objections to a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko.
The recommendation addressed Jackson’s third motion to amend or supplement his pleadings, his motion for a preliminary injunction, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It recommended denying the third amendment request and preliminary-injunction motion, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissing Jackson’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice. The district court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the matters to which Jackson objected, as well as the relevant briefing and pleadings. The court agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis, overruled Jackson’s objections, and accepted the recommendation in full.
Fourth motion to amend
The court separately denied Jackson’s fourth motion to amend and his proposed Second Amended Complaint. It gave three reasons:
- The proposed pleading included events occurring after Jackson filed his First Amended Complaint. The court concluded that allowing those allegations would not be just under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which governs supplemental pleadings concerning later events.
- The proposed allegations did not show that Commissioner Schnell was personally involved in unconstitutional conduct. The court said the allegations instead sought to impose liability on Schnell because of his supervisory role.
- Jackson’s proposed pleading repeated allegations already addressed in the magistrate judge’s analysis and the district court’s review, making the amendment futile. An amendment is futile when it would not cure the problems in the existing pleading.
The court also noted that, in an earlier related proceeding, Jackson became subject to a restriction requiring representation by counsel or prior written authorization from a judicial officer before filing new cases in the District of Minnesota. The court further noted that Jackson had accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits a qualifying self-represented litigant’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees unless the litigant shows imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court concluded that allegations about an undersized bin for legal materials and insufficient access to legal mail did not meet that standard, and that allowing those allegations into this case would evade the filing restriction.
Consolidation, counsel, and final rulings
Jackson moved to consolidate this action with another case, Case No. 24-cv-3334, and requested appointment of counsel. The court found consolidation inappropriate because a magistrate judge had recommended dismissal in that other case and had also recommended denying consolidation there. The court denied appointment of counsel because it was dismissing this case and found Jackson’s latest proposed amendment futile.
The final order accepted the Report and Recommendation; denied as moot Jackson’s motion for an extension of time to object; denied his motion to consolidate and appoint counsel; overruled his objections; denied his third and fourth motions to amend or supplement; denied his motion for a preliminary injunction; granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss; and dismissed Jackson’s Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.