Senty-Haugen v. Jesson
- Dulce Foster
- 0:14-cv-03405
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Senty-Haugen v. Jesson, Judge Foster granted Senty-Haugen’s motions to separate his claims and amend his complaint, opening a new case.
Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen, whose claims were separated from Russell John Hatton’s claims and moved into a new civil proceeding; Hatton remained in the existing case.
What happened
In Senty-Haugen v. Jesson, Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen and Russell John Hatton were proceeding together without lawyers. They were detained in different facilities and states, making it difficult for them to litigate together. The court also noted that voluntarily dismissing and refiling could cause some of Senty-Haugen’s civil-rights claims to be barred by the time limit for filing them.
The court granted Senty-Haugen’s motion to separate his claims from Hatton’s claims and directed the clerk to start a new civil case naming Senty-Haugen as the only plaintiff. The existing amended complaint will begin that separate case. The court also granted Senty-Haugen permission to file a second amended complaint.
Judge Foster ordered Senty-Haugen to file the second amended complaint in the new case by February 2, 2023. The court warned that the new complaint would still undergo an initial legal review required for certain cases filed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Senty-Haugen v. Jesson · No. 0:14-cv-03405
- Dulce J. Foster
- Jan. 6, 2023
Background
Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen and Russell John Hatton were plaintiffs in a case that had previously also included Brandon Benson. The plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The court had earlier separated Benson’s claims and allowed him to amend his complaint, leaving Senty-Haugen and Hatton as the remaining plaintiffs.
The court had previously explained that one person proceeding without a lawyer cannot litigate for another person. Senty-Haugen was in federal prison in California, while Hatton resided at the Minnesota Sex Offender Facility. The court determined that their detention in different facilities and different states made joint litigation difficult. It also noted that the case had been stayed for more than six years and that dismissing and refiling could cause some or all of Senty-Haugen’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, to be barred by Minnesota’s six-year personal-injury filing deadline.
Motions and ruling
Senty-Haugen moved to separate his claims from Hatton’s claims and requested permission to file an amended complaint. The court granted the motion to sever. It directed the clerk to commence a new civil proceeding naming Senty-Haugen as the sole plaintiff. The existing amended complaint, identified as ECF No. 10, was designated as the pleading that would commence the new proceeding and remain operative there.
The court also granted Senty-Haugen’s motion for leave to amend. It ordered him to file a second amended complaint in the new proceeding by February 2, 2023. Initially, only the existing amended complaint and the order were to be docketed in the new proceeding. The court stated that the future amended complaint would remain subject to the required initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Classification and effect
This was a procedural order. The court resolved case-management and pleading issues but did not decide the merits of Senty-Haugen’s civil-rights claims. Judge Dulce J. Foster granted both the motion to sever and the motion for leave to amend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.