Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Leila Kasso, Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
City of Minneapolis et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Leila Kasso’s motions to
modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order and to amend the existing Amended Complaint.
See generally ECF Nos. 40, 42. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has construed
her submissions liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007). Plaintiff is reminded that her pro se status does not excuse her from complying with all applicable rules, laws, orders of the Court, and the like in this case.1 See, e.g., Soliman v. Johanns,412 F.3d 920, 922
(8th Cir. 2005) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives.”); Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,295 F.3d 805, 808
(8th Cir. 2002) (pro se status does not entitle litigant to disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court’s local rules); Burgs v. Sissel,745 F.2d 526, 528
(8th Cir.
1984) (“[P]ro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and
procedural law.”).
1 The Court encourages Plaintiff to review the resources available on the Court’s website for litigants like Plaintiff
who are representing themselves, “Representing Yourself,” https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself.
Local Rule 7.1,2 which governs civil motion practice, requires the moving party to
meet and confer with the opposing party “in a good faith effort to resolve the issues
raised by the motion” before filing a motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(a). Local Rule 7.1 also
requires that a party “contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy to schedule a
hearing” before filing a non-dispositive motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(b). And, when a party
files a non-dispositive motion, the following documents must be filed and served
“simultaneously”:
(A) motion;
(B) notice of hearing;
(C) memorandum of law;
(D) any affidavits and exhibits;
(E) meet-and-confer statement (unless later filing is permitted
under LR 7.1(a)(1)(A)); and
(F) proposed order (an editable copy of which must be
emailed to chambers).
D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(1).
Local Rule 15.1 provides additional requirements that must be met when a party
files a motion to amend the pleadings. “Any motion to amend a pleading must be
accompanied by: (1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the
proposed amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or
other similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading
2 The Court’s Local Rules are also available on the Court’s website, “Local Rules & General Orders,”
https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders.
differs from the operative pleading.” D. Minn. LR 15.1(b).
First, as noted above, it appears Plaintiff may be seeking to modify the Pretrial
Scheduling Order to allow for additional time for fact discovery in anticipation of being
granted leave to amend the Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 40 at 9 (“In light of the
Amended Complaint, I request a continuance or an extension of time to file additional
documentation and evidence to these charges in relation to the 26F scheduling order.”).
It is not clear how much additional time Plaintiff is seeking. It also does not appear that
Plaintiff has attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding modification of the
Pretrial Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 40 at 8-9 (referencing attempt to meet and
confer regarding amendment of the Amended Complaint).
Second, again as noted above, Plaintiff also appears to be seeking leave to amend
the Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff’s motion discusses matter she would like to
include in a Second Amended Complaint, see generally ECF No. 42, Plaintiff’s motion is
not accompanied by a proposed amended pleading. See D. Minn. LR 15.1(b). Rather, it
appears Plaintiff is attempting to supplement the existing Amended Complaint. Any
proposed Second Amended Complaint must be an entirely new pleading that fully
supersedes, and does not merely supplement, the existing Amended Complaint. And, as
required by Local Rule 15.1(b), any motion to amend must include “a version of [that]
proposed amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or
other similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading
differs from the operative pleading.”
Third, Plaintiff is requesting a hearing. Local Rule 7.1 requires that a party
“contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy to schedule a hearing” before filing a
non-dispositive motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(b). Plaintiff may contact the chambers of the
undersigned by phone as stated in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 38 at 3, to
obtain a hearing date. Plaintiff is reminded that she must then file and serve notice of that
hearing date when she files her motion. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff is
further advised that the Court may, in an exercise of its discretion, cancel a hearing and
make a determination on the papers. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(b) (“If the court cancels the
hearing — whether at the parties’ joint request or on its own —the parties must
nonetheless file and serve their motion papers by the deadlines that would have applied if
the hearing had not been canceled.”).
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to
correct and refile her motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 40 and 42, are
denied without prejudice. The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s cognizance of the June 1,
2024 deadline in the Pretrial Scheduling Order for motions to amend the pleadings. ECF
No. 38 at 3. The Court will give Plaintiff up to and including June 14, 2024, to refile her
motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint.3
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 40 and 42, are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
3 The Court notes that, under the existing Pretrial Scheduling Order, “[e]xcept as to non-dispositive motion
deadlines specifically set forth elsewhere in th[at] Order, all [other] non-dispositive motions and supporting
documents, including those which relate to discovery, shall be served and filed on or before November 1, 2024.”
ECF No. 38 at 3.
2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 14, 2024, to refile her
motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint.
3. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior
consistent Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying
counsel and/or the party such counsel represents to any and all
appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like, including without
limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and
disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of
witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings;
complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial
default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time
to time deem appropriate.
Date: May 22 , 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Kasso v. City of Minneapolis et al.
Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL) Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Leila Kasso, Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
City of Minneapolis et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Leila Kasso’s motions to
modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order and to amend the existing Amended Complaint.
See generally ECF Nos. 40, 42. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has construed
her submissions liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007). Plaintiff is reminded that her pro se status does not excuse her from complying with all applicable rules, laws, orders of the Court, and the like in this case.1 See, e.g., Soliman v. Johanns,412 F.3d 920, 922
(8th Cir. 2005) (“Even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives.”); Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,295 F.3d 805, 808
(8th Cir. 2002) (pro se status does not entitle litigant to disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or court’s local rules); Burgs v. Sissel,745 F.2d 526, 528
(8th Cir.
1984) (“[P]ro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and
procedural law.”).
1 The Court encourages Plaintiff to review the resources available on the Court’s website for litigants like Plaintiff
who are representing themselves, “Representing Yourself,” https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself.
Local Rule 7.1,2 which governs civil motion practice, requires the moving party to
meet and confer with the opposing party “in a good faith effort to resolve the issues
raised by the motion” before filing a motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(a). Local Rule 7.1 also
requires that a party “contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy to schedule a
hearing” before filing a non-dispositive motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(b). And, when a party
files a non-dispositive motion, the following documents must be filed and served
“simultaneously”:
(A) motion;
(B) notice of hearing;
(C) memorandum of law;
(D) any affidavits and exhibits;
(E) meet-and-confer statement (unless later filing is permitted
under LR 7.1(a)(1)(A)); and
(F) proposed order (an editable copy of which must be
emailed to chambers).
D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(1).
Local Rule 15.1 provides additional requirements that must be met when a party
files a motion to amend the pleadings. “Any motion to amend a pleading must be
accompanied by: (1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the
proposed amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or
other similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading
2 The Court’s Local Rules are also available on the Court’s website, “Local Rules & General Orders,”
https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders.
differs from the operative pleading.” D. Minn. LR 15.1(b).
First, as noted above, it appears Plaintiff may be seeking to modify the Pretrial
Scheduling Order to allow for additional time for fact discovery in anticipation of being
granted leave to amend the Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 40 at 9 (“In light of the
Amended Complaint, I request a continuance or an extension of time to file additional
documentation and evidence to these charges in relation to the 26F scheduling order.”).
It is not clear how much additional time Plaintiff is seeking. It also does not appear that
Plaintiff has attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding modification of the
Pretrial Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 40 at 8-9 (referencing attempt to meet and
confer regarding amendment of the Amended Complaint).
Second, again as noted above, Plaintiff also appears to be seeking leave to amend
the Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff’s motion discusses matter she would like to
include in a Second Amended Complaint, see generally ECF No. 42, Plaintiff’s motion is
not accompanied by a proposed amended pleading. See D. Minn. LR 15.1(b). Rather, it
appears Plaintiff is attempting to supplement the existing Amended Complaint. Any
proposed Second Amended Complaint must be an entirely new pleading that fully
supersedes, and does not merely supplement, the existing Amended Complaint. And, as
required by Local Rule 15.1(b), any motion to amend must include “a version of [that]
proposed amended pleading that shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or
other similarly effective typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading
differs from the operative pleading.”
Third, Plaintiff is requesting a hearing. Local Rule 7.1 requires that a party
“contact the magistrate judge’s courtroom deputy to schedule a hearing” before filing a
non-dispositive motion. D. Minn. LR 7.1(b). Plaintiff may contact the chambers of the
undersigned by phone as stated in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 38 at 3, to
obtain a hearing date. Plaintiff is reminded that she must then file and serve notice of that
hearing date when she files her motion. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff is
further advised that the Court may, in an exercise of its discretion, cancel a hearing and
make a determination on the papers. See D. Minn. LR 7.1(b) (“If the court cancels the
hearing — whether at the parties’ joint request or on its own —the parties must
nonetheless file and serve their motion papers by the deadlines that would have applied if
the hearing had not been canceled.”).
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to
correct and refile her motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 40 and 42, are
denied without prejudice. The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s cognizance of the June 1,
2024 deadline in the Pretrial Scheduling Order for motions to amend the pleadings. ECF
No. 38 at 3. The Court will give Plaintiff up to and including June 14, 2024, to refile her
motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint.3
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motions, ECF Nos. 40 and 42, are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
3 The Court notes that, under the existing Pretrial Scheduling Order, “[e]xcept as to non-dispositive motion
deadlines specifically set forth elsewhere in th[at] Order, all [other] non-dispositive motions and supporting
documents, including those which relate to discovery, shall be served and filed on or before November 1, 2024.”
ECF No. 38 at 3.
2. Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 14, 2024, to refile her
motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint.
3. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.
4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior
consistent Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying
counsel and/or the party such counsel represents to any and all
appropriate remedies, sanctions and the like, including without
limitation: assessment of costs, fines and attorneys’ fees and
disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or limitation of
witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of pleadings;
complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or partial
default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time
to time deem appropriate.
Date: May 22 , 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Kasso v. City of Minneapolis et al.
Case No. 23-cv-2782 (KMM/TNL) Reference
- Status
- Unknown