United States District Court, D. Minnesota
HOWARD G. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF MINNESOTA; FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES; and PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, Defendant.
G. JACKSON, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. TUNHEIM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Howard G. Jackson brings this civil action against the State
of Minnesota, unnamed State and Federal Agencies, and
President Donald Trump (collectively,
“Defendants”) for violations of various
constitutional rights. (Compl., Mar. 18, 2019, Docket No. 1.)
Jackson's claims also involve being gang stalked, true
and false hate crimes surrounding an incident involving
Jussie Smollett in Chicago, defamation, and corruption.
(Id. at 4.) Jackson does not directly connect any
claim with any of the defendants listed. (See generally
filing this action, Jackson applied for in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) status in lieu of paying
the filing fee. (IFP App., Mar. 18, 2019, Docket No. 2.)
Jackson's case was reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Becky R. Thorson and this Court due to a related case that
Jackson previously filed. (Reassignment Order, Mar. 29, 2019,
Docket No. 4.)
April 3, 2019, Jackson filed a Motion for Hearing, objecting
to the case reassignment and arguing an unspecified conflict
of interest on the part of the newly assigned judges. (Mot.
for Hearing at 1, 3-4, Apr. 3, 2019, Docket No. 5.)
Magistrate Judge Thorson issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) on Jackson's Motion as well as
his application for IFP status. (R. & R., Apr. 15, 2019,
Docket No. 6.) While Magistrate Judge Thorson found that
Jackson qualified financially for IFP status, she recommended
denying the application and dismissing Jackson's
Complaint without prejudice because he failed to state a
cause of action on which relief could be granted.
(Id.) Magistrate Judge Thorson also recommended
denying Jackson's Motion for Hearing on the reassignment
because Jackson had not sufficiently alleged a conflict of
interest or other justification for recusal. (Id. at
subsequently filed two additional motions: a Motion for
Hearing and a Motion to Compel. (Mot. for Hearing, Apr. 19,
2019, Docket No. 7; Mot. to Compel, Apr. 19, 2019, Docket No.
8.) Jackson's Motion for Hearing listed
“objection[s]” and addressed reassignment of the
case, among other matters. (Mot. for Hearing.) The Motion to
Compel sought to compel a hearing for summary judgment,
“spoliation, ” and his “tort claim.”
(Mot. to Compel.)
Jackson fails to state a cause of action upon which relief
can be granted and fails to allege a conflict of interest,
the Court will overrule his objections, adopt the R&R as
described herein, deny his motions, and dismiss the action
the filing of an R&R by a Magistrate Judge, “a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The
objections should specify the portions of the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation to which the objections
are made and provide a basis for those objections.”
Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98
F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (quoting Mayer v.
Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn.
Sept. 28, 2008)). “The district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that
has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). Non-specific or
repetitive objections are reviewed for clear error.
Montgomery, 98 F.Supp.3d at 1017.
case, Jackson's objections are non-specific and
repetitive; thus, the Court will review for clear error.
However, even under de novo review, the Court would overrule
Jackson's objections and adopt the R&R.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), if the Court finds-at any
time-that an IFP applicant's complaint fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted (as per Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)), then the action must be dismissed.
See Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1128
(8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). When determining
whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be
granted, a court must accept the plaintiff's factual
allegations as true. Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,
511 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir. 2008). While factual
allegations do not need to be detailed, they must be enough
to “raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). Additionally, the complaint's stated
claim to relief must be “plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570. A court may disregard legal conclusions
masquerading as factual allegations when evaluating the
sufficiency of the complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009).
complaints must be liberally construed. Atkinson, 91
F.3d at 1129. Nevertheless, they must still provide enough
facts to properly support asserted claims. Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
“objections” are contained in the Motion for
Hearing that he filed on April 19, 2019. He again states that
he objects to reassignment of the case and references
Magistrate Judge Thorson's dismissal of the case.
Jackson, however, offers no support for any of his
objections. He does not specify why the case should not be
reassigned, does not explain why his Complaint should not be
dismissed, and does not specifically respond to any of the
R&R's conclusions or recommendations. The Magistrate
Judge properly found that Jackson failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Even construing
Jackson's Complaint liberally, he provides no factual
support for any of his claims and does not connect any of the
defendants to any of his claims.
such, the Court will overrule Jackson's objections to the
R&R, adopt the R&R, deny his IFP application, deny
his remaining motions as moot, and ...