Horswell v. All 50 States and the District of Columbia
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:25-cv-04563
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Horswell v. All 50 States, Judge Magnuson dismissed Phillip Horswell's challenge to civil detention laws because it must be brought as a habeas petition, not a regular lawsuit.
Civil detainees held under state civil-commitment statutes who attempt to challenge their detention through ordinary federal civil lawsuits rather than through habeas petitions. Also relevant to self-represented (pro se) litigants seeking to file lawsuits on behalf of others.
What happened
In Horswell v. All 50 States and the District of Columbia (Civil No. 25-4563), Phillip Horswell, a civil detainee held by the State of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit arguing that civil detention is unlawful and that all fifty states and the District of Columbia violate the law through their civil-detention statutes. Because Horswell could not pay the court's filing fee, he applied for permission to proceed without paying (known as 'in forma pauperis' status), which required the court to review whether his complaint stated a valid legal claim before allowing the case to move forward.
The court found that Horswell does qualify financially for fee-waiver status, but that his complaint still fails as a matter of law. The opinion notes that federal courts have already told Horswell — in at least two prior cases — that he cannot challenge his civil detention through an ordinary civil lawsuit. Under a legal rule established in Heck v. Humphrey, a person cannot use a standard civil lawsuit to attack an ongoing court-ordered confinement; instead, that challenge must be brought through a habeas petition (a specific legal filing seeking release from unlawful custody). The court also noted that Horswell previously tried to pursue habeas relief but had not yet exhausted available remedies in the state courts before coming to federal court, which is required before a federal court can hear such a claim. Additionally, because Horswell is not a lawyer, he cannot bring claims on behalf of all other civil detainees across the country — only on his own behalf.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson dismissed the case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), meaning Horswell is not permanently barred from filing again, and also denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Horswell v. All 50 States and the District of Columbia · No. 0:25-cv-04563
- Paul Magnuson
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
Phillip Horswell is a civil detainee of the State of Minnesota. He filed a pro se (self-represented) lawsuit naming all fifty states and the District of Columbia as defendants, asserting that civil detention is unlawful and that every state's civil-detention statutes violate the law. He also purported to bring claims on behalf of all civil detainees across the country. Because Horswell did not pay the filing fee, he applied for in forma pauperis (IFP) status — permission to proceed without paying court costs based on financial need.
Legal Standard for IFP Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), when a court grants IFP status, it must also screen the complaint and dismiss it if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court applies the standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009): factual allegations must be sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief; mere legal conclusions dressed as facts may be disregarded. Pro se complaints are construed liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts.
The court found that Horswell does qualify financially for IFP status, but proceeded to screen the complaint for legal sufficiency.
Holding: Dismissal Under the Heck Bar
The core legal obstacle is the rule from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). Under Heck, a person cannot use an ordinary civil lawsuit (such as one brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) to attack the validity of a current confinement if a favorable ruling would necessarily imply the invalidity of that confinement. Such a challenge must be brought through a habeas corpus petition (a formal request for release from allegedly unlawful custody), not through a standard civil complaint. The Eighth Circuit applied this principle to civil detainees in Thomas v. Eschen, 928 F.3d 709, 711–13 (8th Cir. 2019).
The court noted that Horswell has been told this in prior federal proceedings: - In Horswell v. State of Minnesota, Civ. No. 25-1004 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2025), Magistrate Judge Docherty dismissed a similar lawsuit on the same Heck grounds. - In Horswell v. State of Minnesota, Civ. No. 24-0949 (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2024), Magistrate Judge Foster dismissed a habeas petition because Horswell had not yet exhausted his available state-court remedies — a prerequisite before a federal court may consider habeas claims.
Because the facially valid commitment order bars Horswell from litigating these claims in this procedural posture, the court dismissed the case.
Representation Issue
The complaint purported to raise claims on behalf of all civil detainees across the country. The court rejected this: under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, only licensed attorneys may represent others in federal court. Because Horswell is not an attorney, he may litigate only his own claims.
Disposition
1. The case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A dismissal without prejudice means Horswell is not permanently barred from filing a new action, though the substantive legal obstacles described above would remain. The court cited Gautreaux v. Sanders, 395 F. App'x 311, 312–13 (8th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that Heck dismissals should be without prejudice. 2. Horswell's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.