Cherry v. Hennepin County ADC City Hall

Background

Plaintiff Aaron Cherry, proceeding without an attorney (pro se), filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The defendants listed include Hennepin County ADC City Hall, Minnesota Health, Hospitality Solution Staffing, Guarda Security, Ramsey County Correctional Facility, Hennepin County Department of Human Resources, Pursuit Hometal, Clear Lake Dental (W. St. Paul, MN), Minnesota Programming Volunteers, Department of Human Resources, Sgt. Petrode, Morad, Montean, Sarsfield, and Laura Tiffany.

The court noted that between July 2019 and July 2025, Cherry had filed at least six prior lawsuits in this district, all unsuccessful. In most of those prior cases, courts dismissed the actions before service because Cherry's allegations were difficult or impossible to understand. The court cited six prior cases by docket number and cited the dismissal reasons, including failure to prosecute, incomprehensible allegations, and improper joinder.

Most recently, United States District Judge Donovan W. Frank dismissed Cherry's prior case (No. 25-CV-2633) on June 30, 2025, finding that Cherry had attempted to combine all his prior defendants into one lawsuit in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure joinder rules, and that the claims were "mostly indecipherable." Judge Frank had warned Cherry that continued poorly developed or duplicative filings could result in filing restrictions. Cherry had also received at least one prior warning about potential filing restrictions in June 2025.

Cherry filed this new action less than four months after Judge Frank's dismissal.

Procedural Posture and Legal Framework

Because Cherry applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a request to file without paying the standard court fees based on inability to pay — the court was required to screen his complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This statute requires a court to dismiss an IFP complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Analysis and Ruling

Judge Blackwell identified two compounding deficiencies in Cherry's complaint:

1. Improper Joinder The complaint listed nearly the same defendants as Cherry's previously dismissed lawsuit (No. 25-CV-2633), with the addition of a dental office. The court found this presented the same joinder problem Judge Frank had already identified — that defendants from unrelated circumstances cannot simply be grouped into a single lawsuit — and that the addition of the dental office made the problem worse. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (which requires a short, plain statement of the claim) and the joinder rules were cited.

2. Failure to State a Plausible Claim / Rule 8 Violation The complaint's factual allegations were, again, hard to follow and failed to state any plausible legal claims. The court found the allegations were not "plain and clear" as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, echoing the same deficiency that had caused dismissals in Cherry's prior cases.

Disposition Judge Blackwell dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal without prejudice means Cherry is not permanently barred from refiling, though the court issued a renewed and explicit warning that continued filing of claims that are not reasonably developed in fact and law, or that are duplicative of prior filings, will likely result in formal filing restrictions in the District of Minnesota. Cherry's IFP application (Doc. No. 2) was denied as moot, meaning it did not need to be separately resolved once the case was dismissed.

Filing Restriction Warning This was at least the second explicit warning Cherry received about potential filing restrictions. The court made clear that restrictions remain a likely consequence of further similar filings.