Cox v. Commissioner Department of Human Services

Background

Samuel Cox, identified as a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, filed this action alleging that conditions there violated his constitutional rights. The court noted that Cox had filed three earlier lawsuits concerning conditions at the program. Two had been summarily dismissed without prejudice, while another remained pending on initial review.

The court concluded that this complaint was nearly an exact copy of a complaint in an earlier related proceeding, No. 26-cv-0932. That earlier case had been dismissed because Cox failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court explained that the earlier dismissal did not formally preclude this case because it had been without prejudice, but it saw no reason for a different result.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Cox’s allegations were vague and conclusory. The complaint referred to “excessive punishment,” “harassment,” denial of access to the courts, loss of property, and unconstitutional policies, but did not identify specific facts explaining what he was suing about. The court stated that these allegations were not enough to give the court or the defendant notice of the basis for the lawsuit.

Because Cox applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, the complaint was subject to initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. The court determined that this complaint failed to state a claim. It also stated that the problem was not necessarily an inability to plead facts more precisely, but Cox’s choice not to provide nonconclusory factual allegations.

Recommendation

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The judge also recommended that Cox’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be denied and that his motion for appointment of counsel be denied.

The judge warned that Cox would not receive endless opportunities to state a viable claim and that a third submission of the same complaint might be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice stated that it was not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served.