Favors v. Harpstead

Background

Joseph Anthony Favors filed three complaints within about two weeks in April 2020. He is a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The complaints alleged that various people violated his constitutional rights and Minnesota laws in connection with decisions about whether he could transfer to Community Preparation Services (CPS), an MSOP program providing clients greater personal freedoms, and whether he could receive a provisional discharge from MSOP.

The complaints described several related disputes. Favors alleged that MSOP staff used bodily restraints on him after a state review panel determined that he should be transferred to CPS. He also alleged that officials’ failure to transfer him after that determination exposed him to more dangerous roommates and denied him reintegration opportunities that he believed were necessary for his mental-health needs. In the third complaint, he challenged the denial of his request for provisional or full discharge and alleged that officials failed to help him identify an appropriate placement.

Consolidation

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which allows related cases involving common legal or factual questions to be combined. It found that the first two complaints both concerned the alleged failure to transfer Favors to CPS after a state appeal panel’s decision, while the third concerned officials’ handling of his efforts to obtain a reduction in custody. The court therefore consolidated Case Nos. 20-CV-0932, 20-CV-0939, and 20-CV-1002 into one action.

Required amended complaint

Because the cases were consolidated, the court ordered Favors to file an entirely new complaint within 30 days. The complaint had to provide a complete and coherent account of the relevant facts, identify each defendant and the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct, state the capacity in which each defendant was sued, identify the defendants and supporting facts for each claim, and specify the requested relief.

The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and to give defendants fair notice of the claims and their grounds. The court expressed concern that Favors had previously struggled to comply with this rule. It stated that if he failed to follow the directions, it would recommend dismissal under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court also said it would seriously consider whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, but it did not dismiss the case in this order.

The court noted that the three complaints appeared to overlap substantially with Favors’s separate case, Case No. 19-CV-2094. It encouraged him to combine that case with these matters when filing the consolidated complaint and to voluntarily dismiss the remaining matters so the litigation could proceed more efficiently.

Referral for possible legal assistance

Favors had not requested counsel in these three actions. Because the court had previously referred the related case to the Pro Se Project of the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, it referred Favors to that project by separate correspondence for possible assistance. The project uses volunteer lawyers, but the court emphasized that no volunteer was required to represent Favors and that no lawyer was required to be appointed.

Disposition

The court consolidated the three actions, ordered Favors to file a compliant consolidated amended complaint within 30 days, and referred him to the volunteer-lawyer project. The order did not reach the merits of Favors’s constitutional or state-law claims.