Ivy v. Bolin

Background

Rashad Ramon Ivy, an incarcerated person representing himself, sued William Bolin and other Department of Corrections employees, along with the Abuse Review Committees at the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater and the Minnesota Correctional Facility-St. Cloud. Ivy moved for permission to file a first amended complaint. The proposed complaint made substantial factual changes, added new Department of Corrections employees as defendants, and removed the two Abuse Review Committees as defendants.

The parties’ positions

The defendants did not oppose Ivy’s motion. They pointed out that Ivy had not met and conferred with defense counsel as required by a local court rule. They also stated that the proposed amended complaint and its redlined version—which was intended to show the changes from the original complaint—did not match. The defendants asked the court to require Ivy to file an accurate redlined version because comparing the two complaints word by word would be burdensome.

Court’s reasoning

The court granted Ivy’s motion despite his failure to meet and confer because the defendants did not oppose it. The court warned that motions filed without the required meeting and conference could be summarily denied in the future.

The court denied the defendants’ request for a new redlined version. It found that Ivy had limited technology because he was incarcerated, had made a good-faith effort to follow the redlining rule manually, and had caused only minimal potential prejudice to the defendants. The court therefore excused the redlining errors.

Ruling

Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that Ivy’s Motion for First Amended Complaint was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to refile the proposed amended complaint and docket it as the Amended Complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims.