Johnson v. AWA Westpal
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:24-cv-04226
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Johnson v. AWA Westpal, Judge Docherty recommended dismissing the prisoners’ ink-pen claims without prejudice as frivolous.
The recommendation affects Eugene Laron Johnson and the five other named plaintiffs. Claims purportedly brought for plaintiffs other than Johnson would be dismissed without prejudice; Johnson’s own constitutional and Americans with Disabilities Act claims would also be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous. The fee-waiver applications and Johnson’s motion for in-person service would be denied as moot.
What happened
In Johnson v. AWA Westpal, Eugene Laron Johnson and five other plaintiffs challenged a Minnesota prison rule banning ink pens in its segregation unit. They claimed the rule violated constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and sought damages.
Because only Johnson signed the complaint, the court recommended dismissing without prejudice the claims brought for the other plaintiffs. It also found Johnson’s claims frivolous because requiring pencils instead of ink pens did not violate constitutional or disability-discrimination protections.
Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissing the case without prejudice, denying the fee-waiver applications as moot, and denying Johnson’s request for in-person service as moot. The recommendation was not itself a final district court order or judgment.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. AWA Westpal · No. 0:24-cv-04226
- Paul Magnuson
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning a rule at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault that banned “seg ink pens” in the segregation unit and required prisoners to use flexible pencils instead. The complaint alleged violations of due process, free speech, equal protection, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also alleged that the rule interfered with prisoners’ ability to communicate and file legal documents. The plaintiffs sought compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages.
Eugene Laron Johnson was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint. The court had previously instructed that each plaintiff must sign filings submitted on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. The court therefore considered the claims brought for plaintiffs other than Johnson separately from Johnson’s own claims.
Claims for the Other Plaintiffs
The court explained that nonlawyers cannot represent other people in federal court. Because the other plaintiffs did not sign the complaint, the court recommended dismissing without prejudice any claims purportedly brought on their behalf. It also recommended denying as moot the fee-waiver applications submitted by Larry Riddle-Evans and Edward K. Dembry.
Johnson’s Claims
Johnson applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss a case brought under that fee-waiver procedure if it is frivolous or fails to state a valid claim. The court defined a legally frivolous claim as one based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
The court found Johnson’s claims frivolous. It reasoned that requiring prisoners to use pencils rather than ink pens was a minimal inconvenience that did not raise constitutional concerns. The court also rejected the Americans with Disabilities Act claim because the complaint did not allege discrimination based on a disability; instead, it alleged that the pen ban applied to all prisoners in the segregation unit.
Recommended Disposition
Judge John F. Docherty recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice to the extent it purported to bring claims for plaintiffs other than Johnson. He recommended that Johnson’s claims be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). He also recommended denying as moot Johnson’s application to proceed without paying fees and costs and his motion for in-person service. The report and recommendation stated that it was not a final district court order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.