Psomas v. Olmsted County

Background

Alicia Psomas filed a pro se (self-represented) Complaint for Violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights on January 14, 2026, naming Olmsted County, Minnesota; Columbia County, Wisconsin; and thirteen individual defendants. The original complaint was 173 single-spaced pages containing over 640 numbered paragraphs.

On January 16, 2026, the court issued an order (the "January 2026 Order") identifying two fundamental deficiencies. First, the complaint violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1), which require a "short and plain statement" of claims with allegations that are "simple, concise, and direct." Second, the complaint appeared to violate Rule 20's joinder requirements by grouping defendants from two states for allegedly unrelated wrongs across different times, locations, and subject matters. The January 2026 Order directed Psomas to file an amended complaint within 28 days. It also denied her in forma pauperis (IFP) applications—requests to proceed without paying the filing fee—without prejudice because they were incomplete.

On February 12, 2026, Psomas filed eight motions (Dkt. Nos. 8–15), each addressed below.

Preliminary Observation: AI-Generated Filings

Before ruling on the motions, the court noted that several of Psomas's filings appeared to have been drafted using artificial-intelligence software without adequate review before submission. Multiple documents contained bracketed placeholder text (e.g., "Plaintiff, [Your Name]"; "extension of [e.g., 30] days"; "[Defendants]") that was plainly meant to be replaced before filing. The court stated that a litigant who uses AI-generated text bears full responsibility for the content of her filings, just as if she had written them herself, and strongly cautioned Psomas to carefully review any future filing before submitting it.

Rulings on Each Motion

Dkt. No. 8 — Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction: DEFERRED

Psomas sought a TRO and preliminary injunction against defendant Abby Barone and the Rochester Police Department, asking the court to prohibit pretextual or retaliatory traffic stops, law-enforcement contact without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, false reports against her, and retaliation for pursuing this lawsuit.

The court deferred this motion. Because the operative complaint has not yet been finalized—Psomas is still required to file a compliant amended complaint—the court cannot determine which claims and defendants will remain in the case, and therefore cannot evaluate whether Psomas has shown a likelihood of success on the merits or satisfied the other factors required for emergency injunctive relief under Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981). The court stated it will address this motion after the operative pleading is settled.

Dkt. No. 9 — Motion for Protective Order Over Financial Records: DENIED

Psomas asked the court to designate any financial information she submits as confidential, file it in redacted form on the public docket, and restrict its disclosure to the court and counsel only. She cited financial vulnerability, the presence of minor children, and alleged risk of retaliation.

The court denied this motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a protective order requires a showing of "good cause" with specific, not conclusory, evidence of harm. The court found Psomas had not carried this burden: her motion rested on general allegations of bad faith and broad claims of possible retaliation and stigmatization, without concrete evidence of injury from the public filing of an IFP application. The court also noted the strong legal presumption that judicial records are public, which cannot be overcome by conclusory assertions. Additionally, the court observed that standard IFP applications in this district are typically filed publicly, and that the basic financial information they require—income, expenses, assets, and liabilities—does not rise to the level of sensitive information (such as trade secrets or national-security material) that ordinarily justifies restricting public access.

Dkt. No. 10 — Motion for Pro Se Leniency, ADA Accommodations, and Protective Procedural Relief: DENIED

Psomas requested a sweeping order providing: liberal construction of her filings; assistance from the court's ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Coordinator; electronic filing access; permission to appear remotely at hearings; reasonable deadline extensions when needed; permission to use a computer or assistive tools during proceedings; and any other accommodations the court deemed appropriate.

The court denied this motion without prejudice, meaning Psomas may raise specific, concrete requests as the need arises. The court confirmed that pro se litigants' filings are already construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than those of lawyers as a matter of law, making a formal order on that point unnecessary. It cautioned, however, that liberal construction does not exempt a pro se litigant from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders. The court found the motion too broad and premature to grant as presented, noting that items such as e-filing access, remote appearances, and assistive technology are addressed on an individualized basis as cases develop.

Dkt. No. 11 — Motion for Extension of Time to File IFP Affidavit: GRANTED IN PART, OTHERWISE DENIED

Psomas asked for additional time to submit a complete IFP application, stating that her bank would take several months to compile her financial records and that she was still reviewing recently received tax information.

The court granted this motion in part, giving Psomas 30 days from the date of this order to either file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee. The court denied the broader request for more time, explaining that the standard IFP template asks only for current income, monthly expenses, assets, and liabilities—information a person should generally be able to provide from personal knowledge without waiting for bank compilations.

Dkt. No. 12 — Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint: GRANTED

Psomas asked for a 30-day extension of the 28-day deadline in the January 2026 Order, citing the need to review the court's instructions, organize her claims, and present her case clearly.

The court granted this motion. Psomas has 30 days from April 1, 2026, to file an amended complaint complying with the January 2026 Order. This deadline replaces the original 28-day deadline.

Dkt. No. 13 — Motion for Clarification and Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint: DENIED AS MOOT IN PART, OTHERWISE DENIED

Psomas asked for: (1) clarification of what Rule 8 requires, including examples and guidance on the level of detail expected and how to organize facts and claims; and (2) an additional 30–45 days to file after receiving that guidance.

The court denied the extension request as moot in light of the ruling on Dkt. No. 12. As to the request for guidance, the court denied it, finding that the January 2026 Order had already provided clear and specific instructions: the amended complaint must be direct and comprehensible; must not contain lengthy generalized narrative or legal argument; must set out facts in numbered paragraphs in chronological and thematic order describing what each defendant specifically did or failed to do; must tie each factual allegation to specific defendants; and must comply with a 20-page (single-spaced) or 40-page (double-spaced) limit. The court stated it is not the court's role to serve as an advocate or to draft a party's pleadings, even for a pro se litigant.

Dkt. No. 14 — Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Psomas asked the court to appoint free counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) or refer the case to the court's pro bono panel.

The court denied this motion without prejudice. It explained that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under § 1915(e)(1), a court may request a volunteer attorney to represent a person unable to afford counsel, but cannot command an attorney to take a case. The relevant factors include: the factual complexity of the issues; the litigant's ability to investigate the facts; the existence of conflicting testimony; the litigant's ability to present her claims; and the complexity of the legal arguments. The court found the request premature because the operative pleading is not yet finalized, making it impossible to assess the complexity of the claims that will actually be litigated. The court also noted that Psomas's filings to date—while needing improvement—demonstrate she can articulate factual allegations and legal theories, having filed a detailed complaint and eight separate, coherent motions. The denial is without prejudice, and Psomas may renew the request after the claims are defined and the case progresses toward discovery or dispositive motions.

Dkt. No. 15 — Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Adding Rochester Police Department: DENIED AS MOOT

Psomas sought leave to file an amended complaint adding the Rochester Police Department as a defendant and attached a proposed amended complaint.

The court denied this motion as moot. Because Psomas is already being granted 30 days to file an amended complaint in response to the January 2026 Order—which will supersede the original complaint in its entirety—no separate motion for leave to amend is needed. If Psomas wishes to name the Rochester Police Department, she may include it in the forthcoming amended complaint. The court noted in a footnote that the proposed amended complaint attached to Dkt. No. 15 did not appear to comply with the January 2026 Order, as it remained sprawling and disorganized, listed dozens of causes of action without tying specific allegations to specific claims, and included lengthy narrative and legal argument rather than the "short and plain" statement Rule 8 requires.

Summary of Dispositions

- Dkt. No. 8 (TRO Motion): Deferred pending finalization of operative complaint. - Dkt. No. 9 (Protective Order over financial records): Denied. - Dkt. No. 10 (Pro Se/ADA Accommodations): Denied without prejudice. - Dkt. No. 11 (IFP Extension): Granted in part (30 days to file IFP application or pay fee); otherwise denied. - Dkt. No. 12 (Extension to file amended complaint): Granted (30 days from April 1, 2026). - Dkt. No. 13 (Clarification and Extension): Denied as moot as to extension; otherwise denied. - Dkt. No. 14 (Appointment of Counsel): Denied without prejudice. - Dkt. No. 15 (Leave to Amend to add Rochester Police Department): Denied as moot.