Jackson v. Smith
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:18-cv-03127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Jackson v. Metro HRA, Judge Leung gave Sandra Jackson 30 more days to file a proper amended complaint, warning dismissal could follow.
Sandra Jackson received additional time to file an amended complaint. Metro HRA (Metro Council Housing Authority), Terry Smith, Tammy Prigge, Colleen, and Daina Ketchen were defendants in the case, which was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Jackson v. Metro HRA, Sandra Jackson submitted a letter and exhibits that appeared to respond to an earlier order requiring an amended complaint. The court recognized that she was representing herself and had received help from a legal advocate who had become ill.
The court said it could not sort through Jackson’s papers and create a complaint for her. It treated her letter as a request for more time and gave her 30 additional days from the order’s date to file a new amended complaint.
Judge Tony N. Leung reminded Jackson that the complaint must clearly and concisely explain the facts and legal bases of her claims, including what each defendant allegedly did. The court said it would recommend dismissing the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) if she did not timely file a complaint meeting the stated requirements.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Smith · No. 0:18-cv-03127
- Patrick Schiltz
- Feb. 12, 2019
Background
Sandra Jackson, who was proceeding without a lawyer, submitted a letter with approximately 30 pages of exhibits. The court understood the submission to be an attempt to comply with its January 7, 2019 order requiring her to file an amended complaint. The opinion states that Jackson had been working with a “legal advocate” who had recently become ill.
Court’s action
The court explained that although self-represented parties receive some consideration, the court could not sift through Jackson’s papers and effectively write a complaint for her. The court therefore construed her letter as a request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and gave her an additional 30 days from February 11, 2019, to comply with the earlier order.
The court reminded Jackson that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the claimant is entitled to relief. Any new pleading had to be a complete document labeled “Amended Complaint” and had to clearly identify the factual and legal basis for each claim. In particular, it had to explain what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, rather than rely on vague accusations or legal conclusions.
Possible consequence
The court did not decide the underlying claims. It stated that if Jackson failed to file an amended complaint satisfying the January 7 order within the additional 30-day period, the court would recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The opinion itself gave an extension and stated a potential future recommendation; it did not dismiss the case in this order.
Judge
The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.