Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Aaron Cherry’s action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court concluded that the complaint improperly joined numerous defendants, failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and did not state plausible claims, and it denied Cherry’s application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. The court again warned that continued duplicative or inadequately developed filings could result in filing restrictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed during in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing to state a plausible claim.
- Whether the complaint's joinder of numerous defendants and claims violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's requirement of a plain and clear statement of a claim.
Holdings
- The complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because it failed to state plausible claims.
- The complaint contained the same improper joinder defect identified in Cherry's prior action, compounded by the addition of another defendant.
- The complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8 because its allegations were not plain and clear and did not state plausible claims.
- Cherry's application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as moot.
Key quotations
“This action is therefore dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Cherry’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.” (Order text)
“They are not plain and clear, and the same Rule 8 problem persists.” (Order text)
“Cherry is warned again that if he continues to file claims that are not reasonably developed in fact and law or that are duplicative of prior case filings, he will likely be placed under filing restrictions in this District.” (Order text)
Factual background
Between July 2019 and July 2025, Aaron Cherry filed at least six unsuccessful lawsuits involving various entities and individuals, many of which were dismissed before service because his allegations were difficult to understand or because he failed to prosecute or provide service information. His present complaint named nearly the same defendants as an earlier action that had been dismissed for improper joinder and indecipherable allegations, while adding a dental office. The court found that the complaint's factual allegations remained difficult to follow, were not plain and clear, and did not state plausible claims.
Procedural history
Aaron Cherry filed this federal civil action against numerous defendants and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the application required pre-service screening, the court reviewed the complaint and concluded that it repeated the joinder and pleading defects identified in Cherry's prior actions. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and denied the in forma pauperis application as moot.