Lee v. United States of America and Director of the Minnesota Bureau of…

This case involves a self-represented (pro se) plaintiff, Abraham Sigurd Lee, who filed suit against the United States of America and the Director of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) seeking monetary relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law that allows certain lawsuits against the federal government for wrongful acts by government employees.

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard for initial review. On September 18, 2025, Judge Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) — a non-binding recommendation to the district judge — recommending dismissal of the entire case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), a statute requiring courts to screen and dismiss prisoner complaints that fail to state a valid legal claim. The R&R also recommended that Lee, who was a prisoner at the time, be required to pay the $350 statutory filing fee under the installment plan prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), which allows fees to be deducted from a prisoner's institutional account. Lee did not file timely objections to the R&R.

Between the issuance of the R&R and the district court's ruling, two developments occurred. First, Lee was released from prison, as reflected in a December 10, 2025, notice of change of address. Second, on October 8, 2025 (the opinion appears to contain a date discrepancy, listing 'October 8, 2026,' which may be a typographical error), Lee filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, seeking to substitute 'BCA MN Employees John Doe/Jane Doe' for the named BCA Director defendant.

District Judge John R. Tunheim denied the motion to amend for two independent reasons. First, Lee failed to comply with Local Rule 15.1(b) of the District of Minnesota, which requires that any motion to amend a pleading be accompanied by (1) a copy of the proposed amended pleading and (2) a redlined or otherwise marked version showing changes from the original. Lee provided neither. The court noted that while pro se plaintiffs receive liberal construction of their pleadings, they are still required to follow procedural rules. Second, even if the procedural deficiency were overlooked, the proposed amendment would be futile. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute providing a legal cause of action for constitutional violations by government actors, liability requires a direct causal link between the defendant's conduct and the alleged deprivation of rights. The court found that substituting unnamed 'John Doe/Jane Doe' BCA employees for the named director did not cure the original complaint's failure to plausibly allege that any specific individual acted wrongfully.

Judge Tunheim adopted the R&R in part. Notably, the court's Order states the case is dismissed 'without prejudice' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), while the R&R had recommended dismissal 'with prejudice.' This is a meaningful distinction: dismissal without prejudice does not permanently bar Lee from filing again. The court also denied Lee's application to proceed without paying court fees (sometimes called 'in forma pauperis' status), and ordered Lee to pay the $350 filing fee. Because Lee is no longer incarcerated, the court modified the fee collection mechanism — the Clerk of Court is to notify Lee directly rather than coordinating with a prison institution.