Jackson v. Smith
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:18-cv-03127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jackson v. Metro HRA, Judge Leung granted Jackson 30 more days to file an amended complaint and warned that failure could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Sandra Jackson received 30 additional days to file an amended complaint. The defendants—Metro HRA (Metro Council Housing Authority), Terry Smith, Tammy Prigge, Colleen, and Daina Ketchen—were affected because the case could be recommended for dismissal without prejudice if Jackson failed to file a compliant amended complaint.
What happened
In Jackson v. Metro HRA, Sandra Jackson asked for 30 more days to file an amended complaint because her advocate was recovering from illness. The court granted the request.
The court reminded Jackson that the amended complaint must clearly and completely explain the facts and legal grounds for her claims, including what each defendant allegedly did. It also must follow the basic federal pleading rules and be filed as an entirely new document labeled “Amended Complaint.”
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered Jackson to file the amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The court said it would recommend dismissing the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) if she did not meet the stated requirements.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Smith · No. 0:18-cv-03127
- Patrick Schiltz
- Mar. 21, 2019
Background
The order addressed Sandra Jackson’s second request for more time to comply with the court’s January 7, 2019 order, which required her to file an amended complaint. Jackson said that her advocate, who was helping her, was recovering from illness. She requested a 30-day extension so she could meet with the advocate.
Court’s ruling
The court granted Jackson’s request. It gave her 30 days from the date of this order to comply with the January 7 order and file an amended complaint.
The court reminded Jackson that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court directed her to submit an entirely new pleading clearly labeled “Amended Complaint” and to follow the basic requirements in Rules 8 through 11. The pleading must clearly and completely describe the factual and legal bases for her claims, identify what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, and provide the historical facts supporting the alleged violations. The court stated that vague accusations and legal conclusions would not be enough.
If Jackson did not file an amended complaint satisfying all conditions in the January 7 order within the 30-day period, the court said it would recommend that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). This order decided only the request for additional time; it did not decide the merits of Jackson’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.