McCall v. Mathisen

Background

Plaintiff Benesha McCall filed this lawsuit in federal court on behalf of J.W., her minor child, against Jonathan Mathisen, described as an Anoka County Sheriff's Deputy sued in his individual (personal, not official) capacity. The nature of the underlying claims against Mathisen is not described in this order, but the case involves claims asserted solely on J.W.'s behalf.

McCall had at some point been represented by volunteer attorneys, who withdrew from the case on September 17, 2025. Following that withdrawal, McCall was given time to find replacement counsel but did not do so.

Report and Recommendation

On November 4, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a non-binding proposed ruling that a district judge must review before it takes effect — recommending that the case be dismissed and that McCall's pending motions be denied. The R&R's core legal basis was the well-established rule that a non-attorney parent may not litigate pro se (without a lawyer) on behalf of a minor child in federal court.

McCall was served with the R&R approximately one week after it was issued. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.2(b), a party has two weeks from the date of service — not the date of issuance — to file objections.

McCall's Three New Motions

McCall argued that she was not objecting on the merits of her child's claims but rather to preserve her own rights as a plaintiff. The district court rejected this distinction, finding that McCall had never asserted any claims of her own — every claim in the litigation, including in the Original Complaint, was brought on J.W.'s behalf. Because she cannot pursue those claims without counsel, her arguments for all three motions failed.

Standard of Review

When no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court reviews it for "clear error." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). When objections are filed, the review is "de novo" (fresh, from the beginning). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Judge Blackwell noted that the R&R is accepted under either standard.

Rulings

Judge Blackwell issued the following orders:

- McCall's motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 97): DENIED - McCall's motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 98): DENIED - McCall's motion to vacate (Doc. No. 99): DENIED - The Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2025 R&R (Doc. No. 96): ACCEPTED - McCall's Request for Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (Doc. No. 88): DENIED - McCall's Motion to Strike Amended Pleading (Doc. No. 85): DENIED - McCall's Motion to Strike and Rebut Defendant's "Amended Complaint"; Alternatively Motion to Dismiss Improper Counterclaims; Request for Protective Relief (Doc. No. 86): DENIED - The case: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which governs the capacity to sue on behalf of a minor - Defendant Jonathan Mathisen's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 61): DENIED AS MOOT (meaning the dismissal on other grounds rendered it unnecessary to decide)

Effect of Dismissal Without Prejudice

Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the child's claims are not permanently barred. The court explicitly stated that J.W.'s claims may be refiled in a new lawsuit if McCall obtains counsel. The court also noted that if McCall wishes to pursue claims of her own (distinct from her child's), she may attempt to do so by filing a new complaint.