Martin v. Minneapolis District #1 et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Plaintiff's Objection is Overruled; Plaintiff's 3 Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED; Plaintiff's 2 Motion for immediate summons is DEN IED AS MOOT; this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to identify Shaaron Martin as a Restricted Filer, and refuse to file any new pleadings submitted by Martin unless she is represented by counsel, or her pleading has been pre-approved by a Magistrate Judge or a District Judge of this Court. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 06/11/2015. (TLU) cc: Martin on 6/11/2015 (LPH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Schaaron Martin, on behalf of S.C., M.C.,
and K.C.L.M.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Civil No. 15-520 ADM/BRT

v.
Minnesota Department of Education and
Office of Civil Rights,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Schaaron Martin, pro se.
______________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of
Plaintiff Schaaron Martin’s (“Martin”) Objection [Docket No. 13] to United States Magistrate
Judge Becky R. Thorson’s April 28, 2015 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 11]
(“R&R”). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled and Judge
Thorson’s recommendation is adopted.
II. BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2015, Martin filed an Amended Complaint1 [Docket No. 6] asserting claims
against the Minnesota Department of Education and “Office of Civil Rights.” Martin alleges
violations of her and her children’s constitutional and statutory rights.2 Martin also applied to

1

Martin filed her Complaint [Docket No. 1] on February 17, 2015. The Complaint
asserted claims against the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and “Minnesota District
#1." Judge Thorson found the Complaint deficient and ordered Martin to file an amended
complaint no later than April 17, 2015.
2

Martin filed an additional Amended Complaint [Docket No. 9] on April 27, 2015.
While Judge Thorson noted the Amended Complaint was untimely and not properly before the

proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 3] (“IFP”) and moved for immediate summons [Docket
No. 2]. In considering Martin’s IFP application, Judge Thorson recommended that the
Complaint be dismissed because it failed to state a cause of action. R&R 3–4. Judge Thorson
found that Martin’s Amended Complaint failed to articulate any specific factual allegations that
could entitle her to any legal redress against either named Defendant.
Martin’s Objection was received on May 8, 2015. Her Objection fails to identify any
legal error in Judge Thorson's R&R. Rather, Martin simply notes several of her previously filed
cases and her dissatisfaction with their outcomes. Her Objection also alleges several new facts
that, even when construed liberally, are at best vaguely connected to any of the named
Defendants.
III. DISCUSSION
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall consider the appeal
and set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also D. Minn. LR 72.1(b)(2). When reviewing
whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court must assume
that all factual allegations in the complaint are true. Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259
F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2001). The factual allegations need not be detailed, but they must be
sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint does not

court, Judge Thorson nevertheless concluded that the April 27, 2015 Amended Complaint also
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
2

require detailed factual allegations, but it demands “more than unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Though pro
se complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the
claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
Martin’s Amended Complaint includes several conclusory allegations, statutory and
constitutional quotes, and descriptions of unfortunate events. Many of the allegations and events
described do not appear to relate to the named Defendants in any way. The bulk of the Amended
Complaint focuses on the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the results of previous cases and
motions she has brought in several courts. There is no possible construction under which the
pleading in Martin’s Amended Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Martin’s Objection does not save her Amended Complaint from dismissal.3 It includes
additional conclusory allegations and portions of statutes, but once again, fails to state a cause of
action. The Objection does nothing to remedy the problems with the Amended Complaint noted
by Judge Thorson.
This is but the latest suit Martin has filed alleging cryptic claims against many
defendants. Her other complaints have been dismissed at the IFP application stage. See Martin
v. State of Minn., No. 14-8 MJD/SER; Martin v. Mpls School Dist #1, No. 14-4462 PJS/SER.
While Martin clearly believes she has a viable cause of action under these unartfully pled facts,
multiple District Judges and Magistrate Judges have expressly determined she does not.

3

Since Judge Thorson issued the R&R, Martin has filed sixteen additional documents
variously stylized as Amended Complaints, Demands, and Requests. See, e.g. [Docket Nos.
15–32]. These filings are comparable in form and substance to Martin’s earlier filings and
similarly fail to state any cause of action.
3

Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to identify Martin as a “Restricted Filer,” and refuse to
file any new pleadings submitted by Martin unless she is represented by counsel, or her pleading
has been pre-approved by a Magistrate Judge or a District Judge of this Court.
IV. CONCLUSION
After an independent, de novo review of the files, records, and proceedings in the above
titled matter, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Martin’s Objection [Docket No. 13] is OVERRULED;
2. Martin’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No. 3] is DENIED;
3. Martin’s motion for immediate summons [Docket No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT;
4. This action is DISMISSED; and
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to identify Martin as a “Restricted Filer,” and refuse to
file any new pleadings submitted by Martin unless she is represented by counsel, or her pleading
has been pre-approved by a Magistrate Judge or a District Judge of this Court.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 11, 2015.

4