Shortymacknifisent v. Beltz

Background

Archbishop Kingpimp Shortymacknifisent and the International Alfred Bilbo Gholson Church of Ministries, Incorporated filed a complaint naming almost 50 people and entities as defendants. Shortymacknifisent is incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, Minnesota. The allegations generally concerned claims that the defendants failed to respect his religious beliefs as a Church member. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, and various forms of injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs also filed a document titled “Petition in Motion/Notice of Motion.” The court treated that filing as a request to appoint a lawyer to represent the plaintiffs.

Church’s participation

The court concluded that Shortymacknifisent could not represent the Church in federal court. The opinion stated that there was no indication he was an attorney and that a nonlawyer generally may not represent another person or entity in federal court. The court therefore recommended that the Church be dismissed from the action as a plaintiff.

Misjoinder

The court found that the complaint improperly joined unrelated claims and defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to bring multiple claims against one opposing party. But when a plaintiff names multiple defendants, Rule 20(a)(2) generally requires the claims against them to arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of related events and to involve a common question of law or fact.

The court determined that the allegations against Tracy Beltz, identified as the warden of the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, appeared to involve different facts from the allegations against “Downtown Minneapolis T.C.F. Bank.” Because the complaint named dozens of defendants whose alleged conduct did not arise from the same events, the court concluded that the complaint suffered from misjoinder. The court also discussed how combining unrelated claims could allow a prisoner to avoid filing-fee requirements and other consequences under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Opportunity to amend

Because Shortymacknifisent was proceeding without a lawyer, the court ordered him to file an amended complaint within 28 days. The amended complaint must be an entirely new pleading, not a supplement to the existing complaint. It must provide a complete and coherent description of the relevant facts, identify each defendant and the conduct alleged to be unlawful, explain how the conduct violated his rights or applicable law, and state whether individual defendants are being sued in their individual capacity, official capacity, or both.

The amended complaint must focus on one transaction, occurrence, or related series of events and the defendants involved in it. Alternatively, Shortymacknifisent may select one defendant and assert the claims he has against that defendant. The court stated that failure to follow these directions would lead it to recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Request for appointed counsel

The court denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice. It explained that appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary and depends on factors including the factual and legal complexity of the case, the person’s ability to investigate and present the claims, and whether testimony conflicts. Because it was not yet clear what claims Shortymacknifisent would pursue in an amended complaint, the court could not meaningfully evaluate those factors. The court stated that he could submit another request after filing an amended complaint that narrowed the case.

Disposition

The order required Shortymacknifisent to file a compliant amended pleading within 28 days and denied the counsel motion without prejudice. The recommendation asked that the International Alfred Bilbo Gholson Church of Ministries, Incorporated be dismissed from the action. The notice stated that the report and recommendation was not a final order or judgment and could not be appealed directly to the Eighth Circuit; parties could instead file written objections within the period specified by the local rule.