Jackson v. Ace Cash Express
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:19-cv-01987
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jackson v. Ace Cash Express, Judge Ericksen dismissed federal claims with prejudice, state claims without prejudice, and denied Jackson’s request to proceed without paying fees.
Howard Jackson’s federal-law claims against the named defendants were dismissed with prejudice, while his state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. His application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied. The order names Ace Cash Express, Jay B. Shipowitz, Susan S. Pressler, Deputy Kevin M. Murphy, and the F.D.I.C. as defendants.
What happened
Howard Jackson sued Ace Cash Express, Jay B. Shipowitz, Susan S. Pressler, Deputy Kevin M. Murphy, and the F.D.I.C. The opinion does not describe the specific claims. Jackson objected to a magistrate judge’s recommended dismissal and denial of his request to proceed without paying filing fees.
After independently reviewing the record, the court accepted the recommendation to dismiss Jackson’s federal-law claims and deny his fee-waiver request. It declined to use its discretionary authority to hear the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, so those state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen ordered that the federal-law claims against the named defendants be dismissed with prejudice, the state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice, and the application to proceed without paying fees be denied. The clerk was also directed to terminate one docket entry, and judgment was ordered entered.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Ace Cash Express · No. 0:19-cv-01987
- Joan Ericksen
- Sept. 13, 2019
Background
Howard Jackson brought this action against Ace Cash Express; Jay B. Shipowitz, identified as the chief executive officer of Cash Express; Susan S. Pressler; Deputy Kevin M. Murphy; and the F.D.I.C. The opinion does not identify the specific state-law or federal-law claims. Jackson applied to proceed without paying filing fees.
The matter came before Judge Ericksen on a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated August 15, 2019. That recommendation proposed dismissing all state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissing all federal-law claims against the named defendants with prejudice, and denying Jackson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Jackson objected.
Court’s analysis
The court independently reviewed the record and accepted the recommendations concerning the federal-law claims and the application to proceed without paying filing fees. After dismissing every claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—instead dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice.
The order dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It did not provide additional details explaining the grounds for dismissing the federal-law claims. The order’s use of “without prejudice” for the state-law claims means that disposition does not bar refiling those claims; its use of “with prejudice” for the federal-law claims bars refiling those claims in the same form.
Order
The court ordered:
- All claims grounded in state law: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. - All claims grounded in federal law brought against the named defendants: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. - Jackson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees: DENIED. - The clerk: directed to terminate Docket No. 3.
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation to the extent it was consistent with the order and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.