Lukobi-Johnson v. Pester

Background

The court considered two matters: Chriscil Lionel Lukobi-Johnson’s and Kayla Heath’s amended applications to proceed without prepaying court fees, and their motion for permission to file a second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs originally filed a complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against seven individual defendants, four governmental entities, and ten unidentified defendants. The first amended complaint was 88 pages long and asserted seventeen causes of action. The proposed second amended complaint changed the damages demand from $8,000,000 to $18,000,000 but otherwise attempted to incorporate the first amended complaint by reference.

Fee Applications

The court requires complete and accurate financial information to decide whether a person can proceed without prepaying court fees. In an earlier order, the court found that the plaintiffs’ original joint application was not a good-faith explanation of their finances and directed each plaintiff to file a separate, complete application.

The amended applications corrected some problems but still left substantial sections blank. Lukobi-Johnson left blank every income category, cash and bank-account information, asset fields, the dependents section, and every monthly-expense line. His application referred to former employment at Buddy’s Kitchen with zero pay, but the court stated that prior income must be truthfully reported. Heath 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 therefore denied both amended applications without prejudice. Each plaintiff may file a new application that completely and truthfully answers every question. The court instructed the plaintiffs to write “N/A” or “none” when a question does not apply rather than leaving it blank. The court warned that another failure to provide the required information could lead to denial with prejudice and a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Proposed Second Amended Complaint

Because the plaintiffs had already amended once, they needed the court’s permission for another amendment. The court denied the motion because the proposed pleading violated the District of Minnesota’s local rule requiring an amended pleading to be complete in itself rather than incorporating a prior pleading by reference.

The court also concluded that the first amended complaint improperly joined unrelated claims and defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple defendants in one action only when the claims against them arise from the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and involve a common question of law or fact. Rule 18 allows multiple claims against one opposing party, while Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims or require a complaint that complies with the joinder rules. Rule 8 requires a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement of the claims.

The court identified at least four unrelated factual groupings: claims about Lukobi-Johnson’s probation supervision in Olmsted County; claims about child-protection investigations involving Heath’s household; claims about an April 2025 armed tactical entry of a sober home in St. Paul; and claims about three traffic stops involving Hulshizer and the City of Rochester. The court found that these groupings involved different defendants, conduct, times, locations, and legal theories. Allegations of a conspiracy did not change the court’s analysis because the underlying facts still were not transactionally related.

The court denied the motion for leave to file the second amended complaint. It 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 involving common questions of law or fact. The new pleading may not incorporate or attach any previous pleading and must comply with Rule 8. Claims involving separate transactions or occurrences must be brought in separate lawsuits, each with its own filing fee or fee application.

Other Pending Motions and Order

The court declined to address the plaintiffs’ other pending motions, including motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, until the plaintiffs submit adequate fee applications or pay the filing fee and file a complaint satisfying Rules 8 and 20.

Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered each plaintiff to file a new, separate, fully completed fee application or pay the applicable filing fee by May 14, 2026. By the same date, they must file a proposed amended complaint complying with the order. The order states that failure to make either filing may lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to follow court orders.