Benson v. Harpstead

Background

Michael D. Benson, who was representing himself, was involuntarily committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, operated by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. He had two related lawsuits pending:

- In the first lawsuit, Benson challenged MSOP’s identification-badge requirement and alleged retaliation, including denial of food, handcuffing, and a strip search. After earlier motions to dismiss, claims remained concerning searches and seizures, procedural due process, and denial of food. - In the second lawsuit, Benson alleged that officials retaliated against him for filing the first lawsuit. The claims included alleged retaliation, religious-exercise violations, defamation, unreasonable searches and seizures, and procedural and substantive due-process violations.

Both cases had been stayed while related litigation was pending. After those stays were lifted, Benson filed identical motions in both cases to consolidate the lawsuits and to amend the complaints by filing a consolidated complaint. The defendants opposed the motions.

Consolidation motions

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 permits consolidation when cases share common legal or factual questions. The court recognized that the lawsuits had some common defendants, overlapping facts, and similar legal questions. But it concluded that consolidation was premature while a motion to dismiss remained pending in the retaliation lawsuit. The court also was not persuaded that consolidation would improve efficiency and found that the number of defendants and incidents could create confusion. Benson had not included a proposed consolidated complaint, making it unclear how he intended to combine the cases.

The court therefore denied without prejudice Benson’s motion to consolidate in each case.

Motions to amend

Rule 15 generally requires a party to obtain consent or court permission to amend a pleading. The District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 15.1 also requires an amendment motion to include the proposed amended pleading and a marked version showing the changes. Benson did not provide either version. He also did not explain with specificity what amendments he wanted to make or how he intended to consolidate the lawsuits.

The court stated that Benson’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court’s local rules. It denied without prejudice Benson’s motion for leave to amend in each case and said he could file a proper motion in the future.

Requirements for any future amended complaint

The court directed that any proposed amended complaint must be a complete pleading that replaces, rather than supplements, the original complaint. It must identify every defendant and state whether each is sued personally, officially, or both. It must give a coherent account of the relevant facts, explain what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, and identify the specific relief sought from each defendant.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice all four motions: Benson’s motion to consolidate and motion for leave to amend in Case No. 16-cv-509, and his motion to consolidate and motion for leave to amend in Case No. 17-cv-266.