Criminal defendant’s mother loses lawsuit against judge

A federal judge has dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against a Minnesota state judge who presided over her son’s conviction and sentencing in criminal court.

The underlying case involves Rajuan Jones, who was convicted of the felony of being in possession of a firearm or ammunition after being convicted of a crime of violence. It is Jones’ third conviction for the same thing.

Jones was sentenced to the Minnesota Correctional Facility-St. Cloud for 60 months. Additionally, a fine of $3,000 was imposed, with the judge telling Jones, “You don’t seem to be getting it.”

Jones floated many arguments throughout the case, including that no court can have jurisdiction over him and that the jury engaged in uninvestigated inappropriate conduct that should void the verdict.

Representing himself, Jones had his mother, Stefannie Dyson, file numerous motions on his behalf, despite her not being a licensed attorney. In total, Dyson filed eight motions raising constitutional concerns with the court.

Dyson claimed that Judge Luis Bartolomei threw a chair in anger in open court, which she suggested was “evidence of personal animus” and “conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.” She argued that Bartolomei should be disqualified.

“I never threw a chair,” Bartolomei told Jones at sentencing. “I explained what happened as the chair rolled down behind me, without my knowledge, down the steps. I made a record of that. There’s no reason for me to recuse myself. Your constitutional rights were not violated.”

The multiple motions caused Bartolomei to issue an order that any items filed by Dyson would be immediately rejected. Motions could only be filed by Jones, who was a self-represented defendant.

Subsequently, another individual, Sean Wells-El — whose relationship to the defendant is unclear — attempted to file motions on his behalf. Those filings were rejected per Bartolomei’s order.

Dyson and Wells-El filed a federal lawsuit against Bartolomei, as well as Sarah Lindahl-Pfieffer (court administrator of the Hennepin County District Court), the Hennepin County District Court 4th District, and the State of Minnesota in June 2025.

U.S. District Court Judge Laura Provinzino, in an order filed Nov. 3, wrote, “It is not clear from the complaint what claims they assert, against whom, and in what capacity those claims are brought.”

Provinzino found that judicial immunity shielded Bartolomei from the lawsuit in his individual capacity. Likewise, she found that quasi-judicial immunity shielded the court administrator.

Provinzino rejected plaintiff’s argument that Bartolomei’s order preventing her from filing motions on behalf of her son constituted “unlawful censorship and obstruction of legal filings” based on Hennepin County policies. Provinzino found that plaintiffs failed to identify any actual county policies supporting this accusation. Additionally, Provinzino determined that Bartolomei’s order did not constitute “official municipal policy” because a higher state court could reverse Bartolomei’s order.

Provinzino also rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that she should have recused herself from ruling on the federal lawsuit because she previously dismissed an unrelated lawsuit brought by one of Dyson’s other children. Dyson accused the court of engaging in “conduct constituting a systemic deprivation of access to the courts, including dismissing claims against Minnesota state judicial defendants with prejudice under procedurally improper grounds.” Provinzino concluded that there was no basis warranting recusal.

The federal lawsuit has been dismissed, and plaintiffs’ motion for recusal has been denied.

Jones appealed his criminal case on Sept. 16.