Jackson et al. v. Dayton et al.

Filing 155

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Tony Dejuan Jackson's motion 153 is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 9/14/2021. (RJE)

CASE 0:17-cv-00880-WMW-TNL Doc. 155 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tony Dejuan Jackson,

Case No. 17-cv-0880 (WMW/TNL)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Mark Dayton et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tony Dejuan Jackson’s pro se “Motion
Requesting [a] Court Order That Adopts the Relation Back Amendments Regarding
Previously Filed Civil Cases Regarding Conditions of Confinement.” (Dkt. 153.) For the
reasons addressed below, the Court denies Jackson’s motion.
The Court received Jackson’s motion on August 3, 2021. The motion begins by
reciting part of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—specifically, the part of
Rule 15 explaining when “[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1). Jackson then asserts that (1) he has filed
various exhibits in this action as well as two other matters; (2) he has filed a new civil
action and (3) certain exhibits “are already filed with the Court and should be readily
accessible for the Courts Use [sic] regarding the Present Civil Matter before the Court.”
Jackson’s newest civil action appears to be Jackson v. Find Jodi. Com, Inc, No. 21-cv1777 (SRN/LIB).

CASE 0:17-cv-00880-WMW-TNL Doc. 155 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 2

The relief sought by Jackson’s motion is unclear. Part of the motion references
amendments to pleadings, but Jackson fails to identify what pleading he seeks to amend
or what “amendments” should relate back to it. Moreover, even if the motion were
clearer, the Court dismissed this action in August 2018 and the motion provides no legal
basis for the Court to reopen this case based on any purported amendment.
The remainder of the motion suggests that Jackson wants this Court to order the
judges in his new action, Case No. 21-cv-1777 (SRN/LIB), to review materials that
Jackson previously filed in this action (and others), rather than requiring Jackson to refile those materials in the new action. But Jackson cites no authority permitting this
Court issue such an order, and the Court is aware of none. As a result, to the extent that
this is the relief that Jackson seeks, he must present this request to the judges in Case No.
21-cv-1777 (SRN/LIB).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Tony Dejuan Jackson’s motion, (Dkt. 153), is
DENIED.
Dated: September 14, 2021

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

2