Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services
Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, (Jane/John Doe/Unknown Names); MSOP Administration(s), (Jane and John Doe Names unknown and/want Identified); BEU Staff; BEU Hearing Officiers; Amanda Sjoberg, BEU Lead Staff; Justin L. Joslin, Unit Director on Omega-1; Bruce Brekke, Security Counselor; Security Counselor, (Jane/John Doe/Unknown Name); Phil Olson, 1C Unit Director; and Charles Fai, 1C Clinical Supervisor
- Bullard
- 0:26-cv-01984
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended dismissing the case without prejudice and denying Cox’s requests.
Samuel Cox’s lawsuit would be dismissed without prejudice, and his requests to proceed without paying the filing fee and to have counsel appointed would be denied if the District Court adopts the recommendation. The defendants are affected because the complaint would not proceed against them on the present allegations. The report also warns Cox that future duplicative complaints could lead to filing restrictions.
What happened
In Samuel Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services, Samuel Cox, a Minnesota Sex Offender Program client, asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and requested appointed counsel. He alleged that officials violated his rights, but the complaint did not provide specific facts connecting any defendant to particular wrongdoing.
The magistrate judge explained that broad statements such as “denied access to the court,” “excessive punishment,” and “harassment” were legal conclusions, not enough factual detail to support a claim. Claims under Section 1983 also require facts showing how each particular defendant personally caused the alleged rights violation.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended dismissing the case without prejudice, denying Cox’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denying his motion for appointed counsel. The recommendation is not yet a final order, and the notice states that objections may be filed within 14 days after service.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services · No. 0:26-cv-01984
- Bullard
- Apr. 9, 2026
Background
Samuel Cox filed this lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and other identified and unidentified defendants. The opinion states that Cox is a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and that this was one of five lawsuits he had filed in recent months challenging conditions there. Cox did not pay the filing fee and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the filing fee. He also moved for appointment of counsel.
Screening of the Complaint
Before taking other action, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action filed without the filing fee if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court explained that it must accept factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but the allegations must contain enough facts to make the claimed right to relief plausible. Legal conclusions presented as factual allegations do not receive that assumption of truth, although complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally.
The court found that Cox’s complaint consisted entirely of broad, conclusory allegations rather than specific facts. It identified allegations that Cox had been “denied access to the court” and that MSOP officials had imposed “excessive punishment” or committed “harassment.” The court concluded that these statements were legal conclusions and that little remained after removing them from consideration.
The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires facts showing that each specific defendant personally acted unlawfully and was directly responsible for the alleged deprivation of rights. The court found that Cox’s complaint did not connect any particular defendant to any particular wrongdoing.
Recommended Disposition
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended that the matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). She also recommended that Cox’s application to proceed IFP be DENIED and that his motion for appointment of counsel be DENIED. The recommendation stated that appointing counsel was unlikely to benefit Cox or the court in an appreciable manner.
The recommendation further warned that continued filing of duplicative complaints without a plausible basis for relief could lead to restrictions on Cox’s ability to start litigation in the District of Minnesota without representation by counsel or advance authorization from a judicial officer. The notice states that the report and recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. It also states that written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.