Moen v. State of Minnesota

Background

Kevin Moen, representing himself, sued the State of Minnesota and numerous state and county entities and individuals. His second amended complaint was 92 pages long and contained more than 300 paragraphs.

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). That rule requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement of the claim. The recommendation stated that the complaint listed dozens of defendants but did not make clear which defendants allegedly took which actions. Moen had previously been warned that failure to meet the rule’s short-and-plain requirement could lead to dismissal without prejudice.

Objection

Moen objected to the recommendation. He argued that it suggested judicial bias against him because he was representing himself. He also argued that the recommendation showed the case was complex and that the court should appoint counsel for him.

The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Moen objected without deferring to the magistrate judge’s conclusions. The court found nothing suggesting judicial bias or a need to appoint counsel. It agreed that the second amended complaint was overly long and that it was often impossible to determine which defendant Moen alleged had taken which specific unlawful action.

Ruling

Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled Moen’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Moen’s second amended complaint without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order’s stated disposition did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe any later filing or further proceedings.