Anderson v. Butts

Background

The order addressed five related cases filed by Juan V. Anderson in the District of Minnesota:

- Anderson v. Butts, No. 21-CV-0937 (SRN/DTS); - Anderson v. Morris Police Department, No. 21-CV-0971 (SRN/DTS); - Anderson v. Casson, No. 21-CV-0972 (SRN/DTS); - Anderson v. Henson, No. 21-CV-1022 (SRN/DTS); and - Anderson v. Krewer, No. 21-CV-1023 (SRN/DTS).

A magistrate judge had ordered Anderson to explain why the first case should not be transferred to the federal court for the Central District of Illinois. The court explained that federal venue generally is proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court said the pleadings did not identify events occurring in Minnesota or defendants residing in Minnesota. It also said the cases appeared to concern the same series of events, which occurred in Illinois according to the pleadings, although one complaint was ambiguous and referred both to events in “all 48 states” and to an Illinois address.

Instead of responding to the orders to show cause, Anderson filed additional lawsuits in Minnesota. The court said the newer cases also appeared to involve the same events and defendants alleged to reside in Illinois. It further stated that Anderson had not provided enough justification for filing the five matters in Minnesota.

Rulings

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court in which venue is improper may dismiss a case or, when the interests of justice favor that result, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court decided to transfer the first-filed case, Anderson v. Butts, to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois for further proceedings.

The court denied Anderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the filing fee, in Anderson v. Butts. The court noted that Anderson had paid the filing fee for that matter and had stated that he earned approximately $250,000 per year.

The court dismissed without prejudice the other four cases under § 1406(a). It found those pleadings duplicative where the claims could be understood and said that, where they were not duplicative, the court could not identify a viable claim for relief. Because the dismissals were without prejudice, the court stated that Anderson remained free to renew unrelated claims in a more appropriate venue and in a more developed pleading.

The court also restricted Anderson from initiating new litigation in the District of Minnesota unless he was represented by counsel or obtained prior written authorization from a judicial officer in that district. The restriction was set to expire on January 1, 2023, unless extended. The court said the restriction did not prevent Anderson from pursuing viable, nonduplicative claims that would be authorized, but was directed at continued duplicative, vexatious, or otherwise frivolous litigation. The court entered judgment in the four dismissed matters.

Judge

Judge Susan Richard Nelson signed the order on May 6, 2021.