Lukobi-Johnson v. Pester

Background

The plaintiffs filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against seven individual defendants, four governmental entities, and ten unidentified defendants. Their first amended complaint was 88 pages long and asserted seventeen causes of action. They later submitted a proposed second amended complaint, which the court treated as an implied motion for permission to amend. The proposed pleading kept the same claims, defendants, and factual allegations but increased the damages demand from $8,000,000 to $18,000,000.

The plaintiffs also submitted separate amended applications to proceed without prepaying filing fees or costs. In an earlier order, the court had found that their original joint application was not a good-faith explanation of their current finances and had directed each plaintiff to submit a separate, complete application.

Fee Applications

The court denied both amended fee applications without prejudice. It found that Chriscil Lionel Lukobi-Johnson left blank every income category, cash and bank-account information, asset fields, the dependents section, and every monthly-expense line. The court also found that parts of his employment explanations were cut off or illegible and directed him to truthfully report any prior income from Buddy’s Kitchen, even if he no longer worked there.

Kayla Heath’s application reported $1,150 per month in public-assistance income but left blank information about cash and bank accounts, assets, dependents, and monthly expenses. The court stated that perfection was not required, but a good-faith effort and complete answers were required. It allowed each plaintiff to submit a new application that completely and truthfully answers every question, using “N/A” or “none” when a question does not apply. The court warned that another inadequate application could result in denial with prejudice and could lead to a recommendation to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Misjoinder of Claims and Parties

The court explained that Rule 18 generally allows a party to bring multiple claims against one opposing party. But Rule 20 permits multiple defendants to be joined in one action only when at least one claim against each defendant arises from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and involves a common question of law or fact. Rule 21 allows a court to sever improperly joined claims or parties, or require a complaint that complies with the joinder rules. Rule 8 also requires a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claims.

The court identified at least four unrelated factual groupings in the plaintiffs’ pleadings: claims concerning Chriscil Lionel Lukobi-Johnson’s probation supervision conditions; claims concerning child-protection investigations involving Kayla Heath’s household; claims concerning an April 2025 armed tactical entry of a licensed sober home in St. Paul, Minnesota; and claims concerning three traffic stops involving Defendant Luke Hulshizer. The court stated that these groupings involved different defendants, conduct, times, locations, and legal theories and did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions. It also stated that conspiracy allegations did not change the analysis.

The court further found that the complaints included extended discussion of anticipated defenses, discovery demands, and arguments concerning qualified immunity, which did not belong in the pleading. Because the proposed second amended complaint was substantively identical to the first amended complaint except for the damages demand, the same joinder problem applied. The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ implicit motion for permission to file the proposed second amended complaint.

Orders and Next Steps

The court directed the plaintiffs to file an entirely new proposed amended complaint that joins only claims and defendants arising from the same transaction or occurrence and sharing common legal or factual questions. The new pleading may not supplement or incorporate any prior pleading by reference or attachment and must comply with Rule 8’s short-and-plain-statement requirement. Claims against defendants involved in separate transactions or occurrences must be brought in separate lawsuits, each with its own filing fee or application to proceed without prepaying fees.

By May 14, 2026, each plaintiff must file a new, separate, fully completed fee application or pay the applicable filing fee, and the plaintiffs must file a proposed amended complaint complying with Rules 8 and 20. Failure to comply may lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b). The court did not address the plaintiffs’ other pending motions, including motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, until these filing and pleading requirements are met.