Jackson v. Schnell

Background

Tony Dejuan Jackson brought this action against Paul Schnell, Guy Bosch, AFSCME Counsel Number #5 Corrections Guard Unit Incident Management Team, Stillwater Close Custody Correctional Facility, Jane Malcolm, and the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services. Jackson alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the United States Constitution. He filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion asking the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants. He later filed an amended complaint.

A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal without prejudice, denial as moot of Jackson’s pending motions, and a warning that continued similar litigation conduct could result in filing restrictions. Jackson objected to that recommendation. The district court reviewed the portions to which he objected de novo, meaning it independently considered those issues.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Jackson’s claim that the magistrate judge acted with bias. It also rejected his argument that dismissal was improper because the magistrate judge had not relied on a provision of the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court explained that the Report and Recommendation identified an independent basis for dismissal: failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).

Rule 20(a)(2) permits multiple defendants to be joined in one action only when the claims against them arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and involve a common question of law or fact. The court reviewed Jackson’s allegations and agreed that they concerned multiple unrelated incidents that did not present common questions involving all defendants.

The court also rejected Jackson’s argument concerning the imminent-danger exception to the prisoner “three-strikes” rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That rule applies to plaintiffs proceeding without paying the filing fee. The magistrate judge had denied Jackson’s request to proceed without paying the fee, and Jackson paid the filing fee on June 21, 2022. The court therefore concluded that Section 1915 did not apply. It added that, even if the provision applied, the imminent-danger exception would not require consideration before dismissal on other grounds.

Litigation-conduct warning

The court adopted the recommendation to warn Jackson that continuing to file pleadings violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could lead to a filing restriction. The court stated that, if such a restriction were imposed, Jackson would be allowed to file future civil actions only if represented by an attorney or if he first obtained written permission from a judge of the court. The court did not impose that restriction in this order; it warned that continued rule-violating filings could lead to one.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Jackson’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The action was dismissed without prejudice. Jackson’s motion for injunctive relief, motion concerning service, motion requesting appointment of a special master, and motion seeking permission to correct that special-master motion were each denied as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.