Brown v. Lucas
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:23-cv-01464
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Brown v. Lucas, Judge Wright dismissed Brown’s case without prejudice, denied fee-waiver status, and temporarily limited new filings after screening.
Shawn Brown’s case was dismissed without prejudice, his application to proceed without paying filing fees was denied, and his ability to start new litigation in the District of Minnesota was temporarily restricted. The named defendants were affected by the dismissal and filing restriction.
What happened
In Brown v. Lucas, Shawn Brown sued Jay H. Lucas, Northshore Forensic Psychology, Dr. Travis Tomford, and NuWay. Brown alleged that Lucas obtained a life-insurance policy in Brown’s name and joined a group stalking him, but the court found the complaint unclear and did not identify a federal law supporting the claims.
The court dismissed the federal claims without prejudice because they did not state a claim. It also dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice because Brown alleged that all parties were Minnesota citizens, so the court lacked the required basis to hear those claims. The court denied Brown’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and restricted him from starting new cases in the District of Minnesota without a lawyer or judicial permission until July 5, 2023.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright issued the order on May 31, 2023. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling, although any new case would still have to satisfy applicable legal requirements.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Lucas · No. 0:23-cv-01464
- Wilhelmina Wright
- May 31, 2023
Background
Shawn Brown sued Jay H. Lucas, PhD., Northshore Forensic Psychology, Dr. Travis Tomford, and NuWay. The court said Brown had filed more than a dozen lawsuits in the District of Minnesota over the preceding couple of weeks.
As the court understood the complaint, Brown alleged that Lucas obtained a life-insurance policy in Brown’s name and was part of a group of people stalking him. Brown did not identify a federal law in the complaint. The court characterized the allegations of stalking, malpractice, and fraud as more closely related to state tort law. Brown alleged that all parties were citizens of Minnesota.
Screening and jurisdiction
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening of a complaint filed by a person seeking to proceed without paying filing fees. The court accepted that Brown qualified financially for that status, but explained that the application must be denied and the case dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
The court concluded that the federal claims failed to state a claim. It declined to search through Brown’s 63-page exhibit to determine whether he intended to assert a federal claim. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claims because Brown alleged that all parties were Minnesota citizens. It further stated that state-law claims must be dismissed when all federal claims are dismissed before trial.
Order
The court ordered that Brown’s civil complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It ordered that Brown’s application to proceed without paying filing fees be DENIED. The court also restricted Brown from initiating new litigation in the District of Minnesota unless he was represented by counsel or authorized to do so by a judicial officer of that district. The restriction lasted until July 5, 2023.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order on May 31, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.